The transition document notes that reading development occurs more naturalistically: once a child is able to read proficiently, additional growth in comprehension and vocabulary takes place organically, through exposure to increasingly sophisticated text (often self-selected). There is no real qualitative difference between first grade reading instruction and third grade reading for a fluent reader. This continuity in content makes comparisons between the MPG and the 2-5 closer in reading.
From the transition document:
"We recommend that all first graders take MPG Mathematics, because they are not likely to have been introduced to a large portion of the content in the grades 2 – 5 Mathematics assessment."
Mathematics is more reliant on instruction and grade-specific content. The MAP MPG (K-2) does not include content from upper grades, so scoring very highly on the MPG simply means that a child performed as well as a child in a higher grade would have on primary grades material. It tells you nothing about how that child would do on fifth grade material (for example), because there was none on the test. The advisory states that a high score can be an indication that a child should be moved up only if they have also received instruction in higher grade content in mathematics. NWEA makes the assumption that leaving kindergarten students are extremely unlikely to have been exposed to grade 2 mathematics content. If you can make a case that your first grader has, then there this no obvious reason why a first grader scoring above 200 on the math MPG should not immediately be moved to the MAP 2-5.
