# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MAP is a computer-based testing system, correlated to the Nevada accountability assessments, that adapts to the child in real-time as the test progresses. Students are presented with age appropriate test questions at different levels of difficulty that adjust based on the students' responses. Data may be used to monitor student growth and help define student instructional level.

# data[].attributes.body
DesCartes Vocabulary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's time to improve literacy skills during social studies instruction and ensure that readers of all abilities have what they need to access grade-level social studies concepts.

Join us on Thursday, December 7 for a look at scaffolded materials that provide extra literacy support while building key social studies concepts and skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Content and assessment platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Content Aligned To National & State Standard, Flexible To Support Relevant Curriculum. Find the Perfect Piece Of Content For Lessons. Go beyond the book.

# data[].attributes.body
-"Catch Up" Goal
-"Move Up Goal
-"Keep Up Goal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Of all of the statistics provided by NWEA in our series of reports, perhaps the easiest to understand and the most widely used is the percentage of students in a classroom, grade-level, or school who meet or exceed their end-of-year growth projection. Each student's growth projection (sometimes referred to as the student's "growth target") is based on the student's grade, starting RIT score, and the subject in which that student is tested, and represents the median level of growth observed for similar students in NWEA's norming sample. Or, put differently, the growth projection represents our best estimate of the average growth for students at various points on the RIT scale.

This statistic is included in grade, building, and classroom growth reports, and does provide teachers and principals with useful information about the performance of their students. And while this statistic doesn't provide information about how much growth students showed over the course of the year (because students either met/exceeded or did not meet their projections), it does summarize the percentage of students who showed growth consistent with what we might expect to see from them based on their grade, starting achievement level, and the subject tested.

This statistic can serve a number of purposes, as it can be useful in monitoring student growth in the classroom, it can be used to summarize school or district performance, it can be a useful guide for instructional planning, and so on. However, what we are observing more and more is the use of this statistic as the basis for teacher evaluation, which is not the intended use of this statistic. For example, districts might establish a benchmark at the beginning of the year for what the percentage of students meeting or exceeding their growth projections needs to be in order for a teacher to be considered "effective" (75% of students, for example), or teachers may need to improve the percentage of students achieving this goal by a certain percentage each year (such as an annual improvement of 5 percentage points). The use of this statistic in these ways (and more) continues to be something we observe with greater frequency, so I wanted to take a moment to share a couple of general thoughts about this practice.

First and foremost, while the growth projections based on our 2011 norms do provide reasonable goals for students and teachers to strive to attain, recall that these growth projections represent the level of growth we might expect to see from the student in the middle of the distribution (the average amount of growth). In other words, on average, approximately half of all students are going to show more growth than the growth projection, and the other half are going to show less growth. So, if the growth projections are being used as the basis for teacher evaluation, it is probably worth considering if they are appropriate for the students actually in the classroom. That is, for a classroom with greater academic, social, or behavioral challenges, the growth projections may be too high of a bar; conversely, in classrooms where these challenges do not exist, the bar may be too low. As I previously noted, the growth projections are generated for students based on their grade, starting RIT score, and the subject being assessed, so many of the other factors that likely would be related to the amount of growth a student shows (special education status, for example) are not considered in the student's final growth projection. As a result, the "bar" for a teacher's students, in the form of our growth projections, may not adequately or accurately capture appropriate learning goals for those students. Because of this, teachers may be at an unfair disadvantage in evaluations that are based on this metric simply because of the students they teach and the challenges that these students bring-factors that are largely outside of the teacher's influence or control.

Secondly, one of the other potentially problematic issues we observe is that districts set goals for teachers without any context for what might be considered effective or adequate performance. For example, we have worked with districts that have identified 75% as the district's benchmark for what is considered "effective" teacher performance, but that percentage was chosen without any consideration for the prior performance of students in the district (or the level of test performance we might expect to see from these students) as a "one-size-fits-all" approach. And, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, while this 75% benchmark might be appropriate for some students (and for some teachers), it likely isn't going to be appropriate for all students and all teachers. It is certainly true that districts want to set high standards for their students and teachers, but when this statistic is used for teacher evaluation purposes, districts should also want to identify goals that reflect what students in a classroom can actually do, and are goals that are actually going to be attainable by the teacher.

We hope to have some more specific guidance about what our recommendations are for using our tests for teacher evaluation purposes, as well as some of the considerations and concerns we have about this process, so stay tuned for that. But, in the meantime, if you are reading this and you are using our tests for teacher evaluation purposes (especially the percent of students meeting or exceeding their growth projections), it's important to restate that the growth projections are just that-projections (which are great for use in setting student goals)-and not definitive targets for where students should be by the end of the year.

If you have more questions about teacher evaluation, or want to share how your school/district is using MAP data for teacher evaluation purposes, please share your comments/thoughts below...we'd love to hear from you, and can perhaps offer our own thoughts on your particular situation!

Nate Jensen is a Research Scientist at NWEA, where he specializes in the use of student testing data for accountability purposes. He has provided consultation and support to teachers, administrators, and policymakers across the country, to help establish best practices around using student achievement and growth data in accountability systems. Nate holds a Ph.D. in Counselor Education from the University of Arkansas, an M.A. in Counseling Psychology from Framingham State University and a B.S. in Psychology from South Dakota State University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using the Percentage of Students Meeting of Exceeding Their Growth Projections as an Evaluation Tool

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Of all of the statistics provided by NWEA in our series of reports, perhaps the easiest to understand and the most widely used is the percentage of students in a classroom, grade-level, or school who meet or exceed their end-of-year growth projection.

# data[].attributes.headline
Measuring Growth and Understanding Negative Growth

# data[].attributes.subject
Measuring Growth and Understanding Negative Growth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a researcher at NWEA, I often answer questions about how to measure and interpret growth using the Measures of Academic Progress® (MAP®) assessment. Measuring student growth with MAP is a lot like measuring growth in height with a tape measure. A student gets measured once, then after an appropriate amount of time, gets measured again. If the student's measured height (or MAP score) has changed over that time period, then that change is interpreted as growth.

What adds an additional layer to measuring growth on MAP, however, is that MAP scores are reported along with standard errors of measurement (or SEMs), which convey the margins of error for the measured scores. For example, if I produced a RIT score of 214 (SEM = 3.2) in the fall, my "true score" might have been a bit lower than 214 or a little bit higher. The odds are that it fell somewhere in the range of 214±3.2, but I can't know exactly where. Imagine, further, that I produced a winter RIT score of 212 with an SEM of 3.1. Again, the "true score" can't be exactly known, but it probably falls within the range of 212±3.1.

So, then, did I grow? The easy answer is that I lost 2 RIT points, because the difference between my measured scores in winter and fall was -2 points. But since there are margins of error on the observed scores, there must be a margin of error for my observed loss, too.

Just as NWEA reports show the SEMs associated with each measured score, so, too, do they provide the standard errors associated with measured growth. Growth standard errors are related to the individual score SEMs, so the smaller those are, the smaller will be the growth standard error. In the example above, my growth standard error would be computed as , √or about 4.46. This means that my "true growth" most likely falls within -2±4.46, or between the range of -6.46 and 2.46 RIT points.

This can be represented visually with a bell curve, as in the figure below, in which the red shaded area represents the range of ±1 standard error around the observed change (the vertical line at -2):

The bell curve displays the possible range of outcomes for my "true growth". The red shaded area constitutes 68% of the total area under the bell curve, which is another way of saying that we can be 68% certain that my "true growth" falls within that range. But what is the possibility that my "true growth" was actually positive? Visually, that might look like this:

This red shaded area (about 33% of the total area under the curve) represents the possibility that my "true growth" was greater than zero, or positive. In other words, there is about a 33% chance that my "true score" actually increased, despite the fact that my observed scores dropped by two points. There is also about a 67% chance that my "true growth" was negative.

This information is useful in multiple ways. First, it highlights the fact that MAP growth contains an element of measurement error, which can be expressed as probabilities. In the example above, we saw that my "true" growth score had about a 33% of being positive (or that I gained ground) and about 67% of being negative (i.e., that my true score dropped). These kinds of statements are possible for all assessments, of course, but with MAP, the magnitude of error for most students is relatively small compared to fixed form, or to shorter length adaptive tests. And the smaller the error, the more precisely can we measure small amounts of real student growth.

Another reason this is helpful is because it helps to correctly understand and interpret negative growth. In my example above, the observed change (-2 points) was small, relative to the growth standard error. This meant that there was considerable uncertainty (about a 33% chance) that the observed loss was not real. In general, when observed changes are very large relative to their standard errors, we can be much more confident that they are real, and not simply artifacts of measurement error. When changes are small relative to their standard errors, we are much less confident that they are real.

All of the examples given so far rely upon a basic assumption, which is that the testing conditions and environment remain consistent across time. If we wanted to measure how much a student's height increased during a school year, we wouldn't measure them in bare feet in the fall, and then again wearing 3 inch platform shoes in the spring. If we did, we could not be confident that the observed changes in student height were due solely to physical growth. The same principle applies when measuring growth in achievement.
So what can we do?
This is a particularly important factor to consider when understanding and interpreting unusually large increases or decreases in student MAP scores over time. In many cases, when a student shows an unexpected drop in score between two test events, the change can be attributed to other factors. Did the student spend too little time on the test? Was the student actively engaged, or was he/she responding randomly to the items? The MAP system is designed to invalidate any test where the test duration is 6 minutes or less, but test durations of 10-15 minutes may be suspect as well. In order for a student to finish a 45-50 item MAP test in that time, the student would almost certainly need to rush through the test. This could lead to a higher SEM and a lower RIT score.

Make sure your test proctors are logging start and end times, when possible.

Proctors should circulate around the room, making notes on student progress. For example, if a student has completed 20 questions after only 5 minutes, that student may not be fully engaged. Remember that proctors have the ability to pause and restart a student's test if they feel the student is not engaged.

Retesting is also an option. If a student's score has dropped significantly (>10 RIT points, for instance), particularly if the test duration also dropped considerably, a re-test might be warranted.

Make use of the NWEA Reports which show test duration times. The Comprehensive Data File (CDF) shows the test duration times for all MAP tests. Any time you see a test duration under 15 minutes, you should wonder if the student was fully engaged.

Thoughtfully schedule your MAP test window. If MAP testing takes place too close to state testing, or too close to winter or Spring Break or another holiday, it is possible that the student engagement will suffer.

Take heed in promising "fun or free time after everyone has finished the test." MAP is an untimed test, but students may tend to rush through it if they know that there is a treat waiting for them once they are all finished.

Maintain consistency across testing seasons. If the students receive some special celebratory award or activity after testing in one season, the same policies should be applied in all seasons.

Call your NWEA Partner Representative for more information and suggestions. We are here to partner with you and to make your life a little easier when we can. Help is always only a phone call or email away.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Measuring growth and understanding negative growth #edchat #MAPtest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a researcher at NWEA, I often answer questions about how to measure and interpret growth using the MAP assessment. Measuring student growth with MAP is a lot like measuring growth in height with a tape measure. See what I mean in my blog post.

# data[].attributes.body
readworks.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ReadWorks | Award-Winning, EdTech Nonprofit Organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ReadWorks is an edtech nonprofit organization that is committed to helping to solve America's reading comprehension crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As of Monday, October 24, content that was on TweenTribune.com will now be available here on our new educational resources page and on our learning pages. While much of the content that you enjoyed will still exist, educators will unfortunately no longer be able to assign content to students. Tween Tribune has been a valued educational brand of Smithsonian magazine, and we appreciate your continued support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A required part of this site couldn’t load. This may be due to a browser extension, network issues, or browser settings. Please check your connection, disable any ad blockers, or try using a different browser.

# data[].attributes.body
Math Resource

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
XtraMath - 10 minutes a day for math fact fluency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
XtraMath is a free program that helps students master addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division facts.

# data[].attributes.body
Challenged in math

# data[].attributes.body
Far above grade level in math

# data[].attributes.body
Modeling the Conversation

# data[].attributes.headline
PP from the day for Essential Reports/Student Goal Setting

# data[].attributes.subject
PP from the day for Essential Reports/Student Goal Setting

# data[].attributes.headline
Talking Points for Preparing Students for MAP

# data[].attributes.subject
Talking Points for Preparing Students for MAP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As school gets back underway and students get into their groove, teachers begin to think about winter testing. Many schools administer the Measures of Academic Progress® (MAP®) K - 12 interim assessment around this time of year to gather information on student learning that gives them the data needed to make informed instructional decisions. Getting students ready for the MAP test is not difficult, but there are some steps teachers can take to prepare them for the assessment. Here are some valuable discussion points:

1. Talk about the purpose of MAP testing. The test results will show teachers how well students are performing so teachers can best help their students in class. It will also help teachers know about what each student should be working on to improve the most. It's even better if you can specifically talk to students about the purpose of the winter test and how the results will be used.

2. The MAP test builds a unique test for each student. The computer displays one question at a time on the screen. Students select an answer using the mouse or the keyboard. The difficulty of the test will adjust based on how the student performs on the questions. MAP will build a test that is specific to each student.

3. Students are not expected to know the answer to every question.

4. Students cannot skip items, and they cannot go back.

5. Students may change an answer as many times as they like, but once they have clicked the Go On button, or pressed the Enter key on the keyboard, the answer cannot be changed.

6. The tests are not timed, but students need to work productively.

7. Students should use their best test-taking skills. Review test-taking skills with students:

sounding out familiar words

looking for root words

using prefixes and suffixes

looking at surrounding text for clues

reading directions and an item completely, and

eliminating wrong answers

The MAP test is a computer adaptive test, so be sure to include the following discussion points:

1. Find out if students are comfortable using the mouse, keyboard, scroll bars, and a pop-up calculator. If they are not, you might need to schedule a time to familiarize students with the lab and computers.

2. Tell students about the assigned seating arrangement in the computer lab.

3. Remind students that they cannot use textbooks, other materials, or hand-held calculators during the test.

4. Discuss the importance of listening to the proctor's directions before beginning the test.

Teachers are an integral part of the MAP testing experience and students generally do better when the teacher is positive and encouraging. Some additional MAP test resources that teachers may find helpful:

MAP and MAP for Primary Grades (MPG) Warm-Ups - These videos explain how students will interact with MAP and the MPG test for K - 2 grades. The warm-ups also feature sample test questions.

A Parent's Guide to MAP - While primarily aimed at helping teachers have conversations with parents about MAP, the guide is also a great resource for commonly asked questions about the test.

Finally, MAP results from winter testing provide a great opportunity to talk about student goals and goal setting at the mid-year point. Check out some posts from our contributors on student goal setting:

The MAP test can accurately measure growth, project proficiency on state accountability tests, and inform how educators can differentiate instruction, evaluate programs, and structure curriculum. These tips and resources can help teachers ensure that students are prepared and ready to put their best foot forward.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 talking points for teachers preparing students for the MAP test

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As school gets back underway and students get into their groove, teachers begin to think about winter testing. Many schools administer the Measures of Academic Progress® (MAP®) K - 12 interim assessment around this time of year to gather information on student learning that gives them the data needed to make informed instructional decisions.