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=1261My 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."