Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Report

Fall 2007

Introduction

In September of 2007, Hopkins students in grades 3,4,5, and 6 were administered the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments in reading and mathematics. The tests were given to 488 third graders, 519 fourth graders, 546 fifth graders, and 547 sixth grade students. This is the second year that our district has administered MAP assessments to these grade levels in the fall of the year. The purpose of administering these tests early in the school year is to provide teachers with the most current information possible about student learning. The data provided to teachers through MAP assessments, along with other classroom and school level information, will help teachers make sound and effective decisions about student instruction.

The assessment plan in our District directs us to use a nationally norm referenced test to compare the performance of Hopkins students with the national performance of similar student groups. We have selected the MAP assessments as our tool for that purpose, and the second year of full district administration now provides us with comparative data from one year to another. One of the benefits of the MAP tests is that growth norms are generated along with the test results; this information provides us with a comparison of the growth of Hopkins students with the growth of other students in the same grade level across the nation.

MAP tests provide this growth information for each student based on the RIT score. RIT stands for Rasch UnIT, which is a measurement scale developed to simplify the interpretation of test scores. The RIT score relates directly to the curriculum scale in each subject area. It is an equal-interval scale, like feet and inches, so scores can be added together to calculate accurate class or school averages. RIT scores are independent of grade level, and measure a student’s growth over time. RIT scores range from about 150 to 300. Students typically start at the 150 to 190 levels in the third grade and progress to the 240 to 300 levels by high school. RIT scores make it possible to follow a student’s educational growth from year to year.

RIT and Quartile Results

The following test results are the Fall 2007 data for Hopkins Public Schools. Since this is our second year of MAP test administration district wide, the yearly growth in student achievement will be presented as a Fall 2006 to Fall 2007 comparison. This report will use both RIT average scores and national Quartile scores to describe the performance of our students.

1. Overall performance from 2006 to 2007 by grade level as compared with national norms (Figures 1 and 2)

·  Hopkins students in all four grade levels performed above the national average in both reading and mathematics.

·  In grades 3, 5, and 6, Hopkins students did better in Fall 2007 than in Fall 2006 in math. In reading, the test results from 2006 to 2007 are the same in grades 3 and 6, and are slightly lower than last year in grades 4 and 5.

·  In a national comparison of scores, the norm distribution is 25% in each quartile. Our students performed better than the national average, with 31% to 49% of students scoring in the top quartile in both reading and math.

·  In comparison to quartile performance from 2006 to 2007, there are more students scoring in the top quartile in math in grades 3, 5, and 6 in 2007. In grade four, the results from year to year are similar to those in 2006. In reading, the 2007 results indicate 8% more grade 6 students in the top quartile as compared to 2006. In grades 3, 4, and 5 there were slightly fewer students in the top quartile as compared to last year.

2. Performance comparison by gender and ethnicity (Figures 3 and 4)

·  Gender gaps still exist in general, with female students performing better in reading and male students performing better in math.

·  A gap remains between White/other racial students and Black and Hispanic students. It is important to note that a large percentage of the Hispanic students tested are also ELL students.

Because MAP tests are given on computers, there are not as many accommodations provided as has been our practice with MCAII tests. This report does not disaggregate students with special education needs or those receiving services as ELL students, because participation in MAP testing is not consistent across schools and grade levels within the ELL and Special Education student populations.

3. Growth analysis from Fall to Fall comparisons (Figures 5-8)

MAP tests provide a growth target for each student from year to year; therefore, we are able to report the growth status for individual students as well as for the entire grade level. Within this report, we are only able to report the growth status for students who took the MAP test both years. Current students in grade 3 are not included, as this was their first year to take the district test.

·  In math 53% to 67% of the students met their growth target, and 57% to 70% met the growth target in reading.

·  Among student groups that reflect gender and ethnicity, there is no significant gap among these groups. However, fewer Hispanic and Black students met their growth target than those students in other groups. It is important to note that the group size of American Indian students is extremely small.

MAP Performance as Related to MCAII Performance

Students in Hopkins also took the MCAII tests last Spring in order to fulfill the requirements of the No Child Left Behind legislation. We are now able to analyze the data in order to show how MCAII proficiency correlated to the MAP growth measure (Figure 9). Based on both MCAII proficiency levels and MAP growth status, we are able to identify four groups of students:

MCAII Not proficient / MCAII Proficient
MAP - Did not meet growth target / 1 / 2
MAP - Met the growth target / 3 / 4

·  Overall, it is very positive to note that more than half of the Hopkins students are in group 4, showing proficiency in the MCAII and also meeting MAP growth targets in math (54.5%) and reading (55.5%).

·  There are an additional 30% of students who are proficient in the MCAII assessments, yet did not meet the MAP growth target (in math this is 30.8% and in reading 30.1%). These students are primarily White and Asian.

·  There is a small group of students (6.9% in math and 5.9% in reading) who met their MAP growth target, but have not yet reached proficiency in MCAII tests. Most of these students are Black and Hispanic. This indicates that, although not yet proficient, these students are making the anticipated progress in order to eventually reach proficiency.

·  Approximately 8% of students were not proficient on the MCAII tests, nor did they meet their MAP growth target. Most of these students are Black or Hispanic. Upon further examination, many of these students are also receiving services through Special Education or ELL (Figure 10). For example, 78% of the Hispanic students in group 1 are receiving ELL services. As discussed earlier, computer based tests may be a greater challenge for those students whose English proficiency is not yet in place.

Performance in reading and mathematics strands

The MAP tests have been aligned with the new Minnesota Content Standards. The RIT scores were also generated for each strand of those standards. As we compare performance across strands, the information will help teachers and other instructional leaders identify areas of focus for future instructional planning (Figures 11 and 12).

Figures 11 and 12 demonstrate the comparison of RIT score strands in mathematics and reading.

·  In the math strands, there were no significant differences in the two years of comparative data in most areas for grades 3, 5, and 6. In grade 4, 2007 RIT scores are slightly lower than the scores last year in all four strands.

·  In reading, a similar pattern was found. No differences were found for grades 3, 5, and 6. In grade 4 RIT scores were lower than last year.

This decline in grade 4 scores in both reading and mathematics requires further investigation by the department of Teaching and Learning, principals, and teachers.

Future use of MAP Assessments

We are pleased with the data that MAP testing provides as we look at district achievement and areas in need of attention. The use of this data at the school level, and even more importantly at the classroom level, has the potential to be utilized with greater depth and understanding as teachers make instructional decisions for individuals and groups of students in differentiating instruction. The district Assessment Committee will continue to review our use of MAP testing, and make recommendations for future practice. At this time, MAP assessments will be utilized in the following ways:

Elementary:

·  We will continue to administer both reading and math MAP tests to all students in grades 3-6 in the fall, as a district-wide test.

·  This year Title I schools administered MAP tests in grade 2; the other elementary schools also made this choice. We will gather information from second grade teachers and other staff as to the helpfulness of this information in order to make a determination for next year.

·  Spring MAP testing will remain optional as a building and/or grade level decision. The exception to this will be the math testing required of all sixth grade students in order to make junior high math course placements.

·  Students in grades 3-5 will take the spring math MAP assessments as one element of information used for Challenge program identification.

·  In January of 2008 we will provide an additional 1/2 day MAP training for all teachers in grades 3-6. This professional development will include deeper study of instructional uses of MAP information, as well as ideas from Bonnie Hild and Michele Luke as to its appropriate use.Elementary principals will also meet to gather this same information as instructional leaders. Special education, Challenge, ELL, and other instructional staff may choose one grade level meeting to attend.

·  CARE teams at each school will use MAP assessment data to track the progress of an identified focus group of students, including the interventions and instructional strategies in place.

Junior High:

·  Junior high principals will develop a consistent MAP protocol for the 2008-2009 school year, particularly to provide consistent reading and mathematics information from 9th grade to 10th grade, as students transition from junior high to senior high.

·  Principals, working with the reading curriculum coordinator, will develop a strategy to ensure that all grade 9 students who are not proficient in reading will take the spring MAP reading test in the 2007-2008 school year

Senior High

MAP testing is new to the high school this year. This fall we are testing students with no test history, and those students whose grade 9 reading scores indicate that they are not proficient. These scores will be used to determine which students are in need of additional interventions. We will gather feedback from this year’s use of MAP testing to inform our future practices at the high school.

Conclusions

MAP testing remains an important element in our district assessment protocol. The information it provides gives comparative data against national norms, along with school and classroom level instructional information. In combination with other formative and summative assessment instruments, we have a range of data elements with which to assess student progress, make instructional decisions, and provide necessary supports