Hi,
I'm a new member and I'm scratching my head about my daughter's scores. In Spring 08 (Kindergarten)she had what appeared to be high scores across the board:

GRADE Stanine 9
DRA (on level is 3) 24
MST (on level 17/35) 34/35
SRI 216
MAP Reading 187 99%
MAP Math 183 98%

I asked about the Gifted program for this year (1st grade) and her teacher said her Fall 08 scores aren't high enough:

SRI 314
MAP Reading 195 81%
MAP Math 187 77%

I don't understand this discrepancy between spring and fall since I saw good progress in her reading and math over the summer. I'm hoping someone on this board may have some insight or at least help me form some good questions for the teacher so I can understand what's going on.

Thanks for the info and I'm still trying to sort it out. The teacher told me her reading MAP RIT needed to be 209 to be considered for the gifted program as a first grader. On this link the highest initial RIT block for 2nd graders is 200-209. She told me her math MAP RIT needed to be 211 and on this link the highest initial RIT block for 2nd graders is 190-199:

http://www.foridahoteachers.org/isat%20resources%20files/RIT%20Growth%20Norms.pdf

I downloaded the 2008 Normative Data. It only has means and medians but not standard deviations. That's why I was looking at the other information that had RIT blocks for grade.

Based on the 2008 Normative Data her RIT score puts her around 3rd grade middle of the year median and mean for reading. It puts her around 2nd grade middle of the year median and mean for math. This makes sense with the work we've seen her doing.

I'm going to ask to talk to the school MAP testing expert on Monday because I think the percentiles were for a different grade.

That's a good point Dottie that I hadn't considered. I think the 2002 NWEA RIT Block Growth Norms are still in use. I can only find updated Normative Data (2008). The Block Growth norms only start for 2nd grade and that ties into this part:

RIT point growth norms are available for grades 2 � 10 in Reading, Language Usage, Mathematics, General Science Topics and Science Concepts and Processes.
For kindergarten and 1st grade, RIT block growth norms, based on 10-point RIT blocks, provide a reference for measuring typical growth in the primary grades.

I'm wishing I'd paid closer attention in stats class. I found this link that had information about RIT standard deviation. It says:

"At each grade the standard deviation (for reading) is between 14 and 15. That means that if a student takes the test repeatedly on the same day, his/her scores will fall within 7-7.5 points on either side of the reported RIT score. That represents the RIT range....

The (Math) standard deviations (sd) varied from a high of 16.69 RIT points in 8 th grade to a low of 10.93 RIT points in second grade in the fall."

So using the 2008 1st grade Reading Mean of 160 and SD of 15, my daughter's score is over 2 SD above the mean for reading. Using 2008 1st grade Math Mean of 164 and SD of 10.93, her score is over 2 SD above the mean for math.

Does that make sense or am I messing up applying stats?
http://www.illinoisnwea.org/NWEA-06/MAP_101-handout.pdf

It's not you, it's them! That is absolutely not what a standard deviation means. In fact, if you think about it, it couldn't possibly be this. Suppose someone takes the test at 9am and gets a score of N. According to the above, if they take the test again at 10am, 11am, ... 11pm, all the subsequent scores will be between N - 7.5 and N + 7.5. That is, magically, the very first test managed to produce a score that was in the middle, not an outlier, among the set of all possible scores that that student could produce. How's that supposed to happen?

The standard deviation is about how much variation there is among the test scores of a group of subjects, in this case the ones the test was normed on. It has nothing to do with how much an individual's score may vary. (You *could* talk about that using SD, but I looked at the link - it isn't.)

That's what I cynically thought too, but of course it's a classic case of "reversion to the mean" which is not sinister but just what obviously happens with imperfect testing. If someone, by fluke, does better than they "should" do on the test, then chances are that won't happen again next time, so their next score will probably be closer to their "true" score and they will show less growth than most. Similarly, if someone does badly by "fluke", they'll probably show more growth than most. In order for that trend to show up, you don't have to posit that that's the ONLY reason for someone to test unusually high/low - just that sometimes that's the reason.

That said, it is all too plausible that there's a real effect (not just an artifact of test imperfections) there too.

The document does definitely say it's talking about SDs. The simplest interpretation would be that someone who didn't understand the document assumed other people wouldn't understand it and "helpfully" added the wrong explanation of what SD means.

My sympathies! I'm still hoping to avoid having to test at all, but we'll see.

Dottie, it is disturbing. If you look at the RIT Block Growth Norms, a 2nd grader starting with an initial RIT score between 150-159 has a mean growth of 21.4. A 2nd grader with an initial RIT score between 200-209 has a mean growth of 7.9.

ColinsMum thanks, now I feel better about the SD definition I'd learned in my stats class.

It's disturbing because we know gifted kids have the potential for great growth with the proper conditions. This data may indicate they're not experiencing that growth.

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!

From http://www.nwea.org/assessments/map.asp

What is the RIT scale?
The scale NWEA uses to measure a student's progress is called the RIT scale, short for Rasch Unit. The RIT scale is an equal-interval scale much like centimeters on a meterstick. It is used to chart a student's academic growth from year to year.
If you would like more information on the RIT scale, refer to the following materials:
Hambleto, R.K. , Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, J. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park: Sage.

Ingebo, G. (1997). Probability in the Measure of Achievement. Chicago: MESA Press

Wright, B.D. & Stone, M. (1979). Best Test Design. Chicago: MESA Press.

Visit http://edres.org/irt/ for introductory material about the item response theory and the Rasch model.

az1,
It's important to note that the RIT is not grade level dependent but the percentile (NWEA norm) is grade level dependent. I think that's the problem I'm having with my daughter's results.

Here's a good slide show about the MAP test and slide # 15 highlights the difference between RIT and percentile.

http://www.mvcsc.k12.in.us/nwea/datacoach

That link isn't working anymore. This is a similar slide but you'll need to click it a few times:

http://springfield.ccsdschools.com/.../site/hosting/Map1/teach_mod_8_03.ppt#44
or this
http://tinyurl.com/3gorbk

Mia,
Thanks for the warning and I had a steep learning curve last year while advocating for health and wellness issues at the school. It reminded me of a quote from the book �Straight Man� by Richard Russo. The main character was describing the university budget process and said, �This budgetary danse macabre, a semester-by-semester ritual is ridiculous. There�s no valid reason why we can�t be told the semester before if the soft money to cover all necessary sections of freshman composition will in fact be made available. To expect reason is where the fallacy lies.� There were a few other good quotes that captured the frustration in advocating.

So I�m going in expecting the gifted danse macabre but at least the district seems relatively progressive when it comes to gifted education. It�s the only district in the state with a magnet school accelerated cluster for full time gifted education (unfortunately it doesn�t start until grade 3) and there is a local chapter of the state gifted advocacy group. A nationally renowned psychologist in gifted issues practices in our town and is a coauthor of �A Parents Guide to Gifted Children.� He spoke at a gifted advocacy night held at the magnet school and the district�s website has some of his articles posted on the gifted education section. If we can�t get by roadblocks at the school, we�ll probably pay the big bucks for him to do an assessment and advocate on our daughter�s behalf.

In the meantime, I�m trying to be �patiently impatient� as was recommended in �A Parent�s Guide to Gifted Education.� I read another quote somewhere else that I�m trying to keep in mind:
�The essence of advocacy is to keep a conversation going.� Bob Babbage

I sent in letters to the school today asking for MAP test clarification so now I�m back to repeating the �patiently impatient� mantra to myself and providing enrichment at home.

Thanks for the explanation inky. I am waiting for the complete MAP testing numbers. I hope to get them this Friday. I pulled NWEA RIT for 2008 and the 2005 placement guidelines but am waiting to get the complete MAP "picture" on Friday. I will definitely be back with my scores, looking for advice on my next move.

Thanks again for the info.

You're welcome & good luck az1

The link I posted earlier about RIT being grade level independent isn't working now. Here's the same slide on another site. It's slide #44:
http://springfield.ccsdschools.com/.../site/hosting/Map1/teach_mod_8_03.ppt#44
or this
http://tinyurl.com/3gorbk

kcab, when I look at my daughter's scores from Spring to Fall I see what you mean. She had a RIT growth of 8 in reading and 4 in math.

It doesn't look too impressive when compared to the 5 point difference in reading and 6 point difference in math between end of year K median and beginning of year 1st grade median. It is impressive in comparison to an end of year 2nd grade median of 190 and 3rd grade beginning of year median of 192 (reading). Also when compared to an end of year 1st grade median of 178 and beginning year 2nd grade median of 179 (math).

Comparing to the expected growth for the grade level that coincides with the test scores makes more sense with what we saw.

For those of you who have been following this, I failed to mention an important piece of information in my initial post. The Spring 08 MAP scores I had were from a computer print out with the NWEA logo at the top. The Fall 08 scores were in a handwritten note from the teacher. It appears there was some renormalization of the scores below the NWEA level. I think this renormalization skews the data for high end scores. I'm trying to meet with the school to learn more about how the renormalization was done.

I just got confirmation from the school that they renormed the test scores based on five 1st grade classrooms.

I'm going to ask for details about how they renormed the scores. It doesn't sit right with me that they would renorm and not tell the parents when they gave out the new percentiles. If I hadn't looked up the NWEA data I'd have never known.

I was thinking that same thing, Dottie. Those are some pretty high cuts, that they have enough kids passing those numbers to get into the GT program at all! Easy enough way to phase out GT -- "You didn't make the 500 RIT score first grade cut-off, sorry!"

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.

I saw the Vice Principal yesterday and he'd contacted the test company rep. The rep said the Preliminary Norms were made before they had any large scale test results and not to use it. They'd made it up because schools kept asking for something with percentiles before the large scale testing results were complete.

That's disconcerting in itself, but I'm also amazed that the Principal and Vice Principal could look at the 2 sets of data (Preliminary Norms and RIT Scale Norms for Early Primary Grades) and choose to go with the set that it so out of whack (Preliminary Norms).

For instance, I calculated the Standard Deviation for the Preliminary Norms to be 33 for Math and 31 for Reading. The SD for the RIT Scale Norms is 12 for Math and 10 for Reading. For Math using the Preliminary Norms, 95% of the 1st grade data would fall between 94 and 226. Using RSN for EPG, 95% of the 1st grade data would fall between 140 and 184. To put it in perspective, the K beginning of year mean is 149.5 and 7th grade middle of year mean is 226.4. Which set of data would you choose?

I knew there was something wrong with the Preliminary Norms because I knew my daughter. Does this indicate they don't know their students? How does this impact the planning process for the students?

I brought the MAP issue up at the School Based Decision Making Council. It's an organization made up of the principal, parents and teachers with a number of legal responsibilities including test score analysis. I'm also planning to contact the district testing expert to see what type of oversight there is for test score analysis and if other schools are making the same error.

I'm still waiting to find out when they're going to test DD and what assessment would be used. From your experience, what is the typical time it takes from when a parent requests an assessment and the child is tested?

Hi, I hope that Dottie catches this part of your post... She definitely can guide you. If you don't get a response, PM her.
Good luck KLH and Inky...

Uugh! It's been two weeks and I thought that was excessive. Thanks for letting me know and I'll work on readjusting my internal clock.

Adding this to the original thread in case someone else runs into this problem. Hopefully it will save a lot of searching.

It looks like other school districts are using the erroneous MAP data (Preliminary and Initial Norms). I found this on a different district's web site. I think I have to write a letter to NWEA.

Note: These are the bad norms!!
http://www.bismarck.k12.nd.us/uploads%5Cresources%5C2530%5Cmap_pri_fall_percentiles.pdf

http://www.bismarck.k12.nd.us/uploads/resources/2531/map_pri_spring_percentiles.pdf

So those are the *incorrect* scores, right? Just checking to make sure the scores/percentiles I have are right! Do you have a similar link for the correct scores/percentiles?

ETA: Doh. Went back a page and found it.

Trying to keep all MAP stuff together.
I came across this tonight. They are RIT samples for Reading, Math and Language:
http://www.scisdragons.net/inside/nweapdf/Reading.pdf
http://www.scisdragons.net/inside/nweapdf/Math.pdf
http://www.scisdragons.net/inside/nweapdf/Language.pdf

Also this is a good explanation of MAP basics. Wish they had more info on Miguel...
http://www.scisdragons.net/inside/pdf/MAP%20Basics.pdf

I finally found the 2008 Norms Study and I'll post it here to keep the pertinent MAP info together.

http://pickens.it.schoolfusion.us/m...ssionid=14d1e9266e4482d198ebc39c6e6bc9c3

This was the last sentence of the report. I'd love to know more about this story!

Yikes!

They mean "population size" not "sample size."

As far as education goes, they really need to follow individual kids and not just the districts to understand how education is doing. Then you can correct for both student and district effects.

Surely that's a mistake related to the changes in this site, no?

I wonder... views of ultimate brag thread: 3,418,331

That might be valid. It's a LOT of pages! I've probably looked at it 1000 times myself!

Adding to the MAP test info. I was looking for information about test ceiling for the primary test. Couldn't find it but came across this for the secondary test.

http://www.nwea.org/support/details.aspx?content=532
Scale Variance by Subject
Why do RIT scales vary from subject to subject (e.g. the mathematics RIT scale goes higher than other subject areas)? A ceiling effect exists when an assessment does not have sufficient range to accurately measure students at the highest performance levels. It has nothing to do with the actual numbers attached to the scale and everything to do with the position of students on it. For example, in reading, the RIT scale measures with relative accuracy up to about 245. This represents the 93rd percentile at grade 10, and the 95th percentile at grade 8. If a student scores above we know that student performed high but may not be able to accurately assess how high they performed. Relative to other tests, therefore, there is very little true ceiling effect in this assessment. Even most high performing 10th graders receive a technically accurate measure of their skill.

I'd read it this way: "most" means more than 50%, so if "high performing" means, say, above the 75th percentile, then of the high performing 10th graders, the fraction who receive a technically accurate measure, i.e. do not hit the ceiling, is (93-75)/(100-75), which is greater than 50%, i.e., most! It all rests on what the definition of "high performing" is...

I had the same question as Dottie when I read it and came up with an explanation similar to ColinsMum's. The main takeaway is that when a child scores around 245 in reading on the secondary test, that should be considered their lowest possible score. Their actual score could be a little or a lot higher, but it's impossible to know without using a different test.

I wonder what the math RIT ceiling for the secondary test is? 265??

I think there's a similar effect with the primary test somewhere around the 210 RIT level.

Here's another interesting post about the NWEA MAP.
http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.com/search?q=nwea

The probability density graph is interesting as the bell curve flattens and standard deviations get wider as children move up in grade level.

When I looked at the SD on the national data, they seem to increase every year up to 8th grade then decrease. I wonder if this is due to the test ceiling on the upper end of the curve?

If an expert is someone who brings confusion to simplicity, then I must qualify

This added to my confusion:

http://www.nwea.org/support/details.aspx?content=914

It seems there are three levels of MAP testing and not two like I thought:
MAP for Primary Grades (K&1)
Standard MAP for grades 2-5
Standard MAP for grades 6+

So this would mean there are three different test ceilings that could come into play. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any guidance about switching a child who's performing near the ceiling to a higher level test. The guidance seems to be just based on grade (see page 6).
http://www.bransonschoolonline.com/filestore/branson_parentlettertesting.pdf

me too, but it seems there is a Grade for 2-5th garders? 6th and up?...thats how it comes across. Where is the teacher in all this? The Teacher should send an explaination...

The teacher's been in the loop but gets information from administrators who have given out some bad data in the past. I asked if DD7 could take the secondary test but was told it's past the test window and probably wouldn't have any effect on her score. I came across this today which seems to support my 210 primary MAP ceiling theory:
MAP Primary Ceiling

Choosing Appropriate Test

* Refer to prior data gathered on the student
* Discuss with prior teacher
* Pre-requisite test until the student has attained all foundational skills
* Skills test until the student has attained all foundational skills
* MAP for Primary Grades until they obtain a RIT score of 210 or no longer need the audio support