measures’ofacademic’progress’(map)’results,’ 2016’ · 3! report!tothe!school!board!...

Excellence. Every School. Every Student. Every Day.

Report to the Schoo l Board Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Results , 2016 Novembe r 15 , 2 016 R epo r t p r epa r ed b y K a r en T e rhaa r , D i r e c t o r o f T e a ch i n g and L e a rn i n g , K a t h r yn O ’Go rman , A s s e s smen t and Da t a Con su l t an t

Overview Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) tests are given to all students in grades 3-‐6 in the Hopkins Public Schools at least twice each year. The NWEA MAP test is a nationally norm-‐referenced test that provides both achievement and growth information for each student. The scores also inform instruction in both reading and math, and are used as our universal screening tool in our Response to Intervention (RtI) program. Primary Issues to Consider

• MAP Math Growth and Achievement • MAP Reading Growth and Achievement • Growth by Racial Ethnic and Program Groups • Looking at Achievement and Growth Together • Instructional Uses

Supporting Documents The full report begins on the next page.

• MAP Figures

2 Report to the School Board

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Results, 2016 November 15, 2016


2015-‐16 MAP Results MAP Test Background Information Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) are state-‐aligned computer-‐adaptive tests that reflect the achievement level of each student and also measure the student’s academic growth over time. Both achievement and growth information inform students, teachers, and families about the learning of each student from year to year and provide instructional information that the grade level teacher may use to inform instruction and provide for more personalized learning. Data provided for individual students, grade levels, or the entire school are used in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), Response to Invention (RtI) meetings, school planning, school data retreat work, and professional development plans. MAP tests provide 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 used to calculate accurate class or school averages. RIT scores are independent of grade level, and allow for measuring a student’s growth over time. The scores range from approximately 159-‐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. The MAP assessment is an adaptive assessment, which means the questions change to meet the student's ability, accurately measuring what a child knows and needs to learn. In addition, MAP tests measure academic growth over time, independent of grade level or age. Growth target scores are provided by the vendor, Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), and are by definition the average growth made by students at the same grade, subject, and specific starting score. Our district assessment plan directs us to use a nationally norm-‐referenced test to compare the performance of Hopkins students with the performance of similar student groups across the nation. We have selected the MAP assessment as our tool for that purpose, and years of District administration now provide us with years of comparative data on both overall achievement and growth. In 2015 NWEA released new norms for achievement (also called ‘status’) and growth, which were used for the first time in 2015-‐16. The NWEA 2015 norm study relied on methodological improvements such as a larger and more representative sample, more testing terms in the study, and a new statistical growth model. Because of these

3 Report to the School Board Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Results, 2016 November 15, 2016

Excellence. Every School. Every Student. Every Day

enhancements, NWEA claims that 2015 norms are more accurate than the previous 2011 norms. The effects of the new norms can be seen in more stringent growth targets and somewhat lower test scores – especially at upper grade levels. The changes in norms impacted our math scores much more than they did our reading scores and brought our math performance closer to our reading performance. As part of the 2015 norms release, the MAP now reports growth percentiles in addition to the typical percentile rank for achievement. MAP Fall to Spring Growth Results Figures 1-‐4 compare the percentage of Hopkins students who met their individual growth targets based on the new national norms (2015). Since the growth targets are by definition the average growth made by students at the same grade, subject, and specific starting score, the national norm for meeting growth targets is 50%. Please note: 2014-‐15 growth scores were recalculated using 2015 norms in order to provide a comparison to 2015-‐16 scores. Hopkins 2015-‐16 growth rates overall and by grade level (Figures 1 and 2):

• In math, overall 58% of students met or exceeded their individual growth targets, 8 percentage points higher than the national average of 50%. This is a 2 percentage point increase from 2014-‐15 overall math results.

• In math, all grade levels exceeded the national norms in terms of the percent of students meeting or exceeding their individual growth targets. Growth rates ranged from 56% in grade 4 to 61% in grade 5. Growth rates increased from 2014-‐15 in three of the four reported grades.

• In reading, overall 56% of students met or exceeded their individual growth targets, 6 percentage points higher than the national average of 50%. This is a 2 percentage point decrease from 2014-‐15 overall reading growth results.

• In reading, all grade levels exceeded the national norms in terms of the percent of students meeting or exceeding their individual growth targets. Growth rates ranged from 52% in grade 5 to 59% in grade 6. Results were mixed when comparing to 2014-‐15 growth. Grade 5 had the most dramatic change with a 7 percentage point drop from 2014-‐15.

Hopkins 2015-‐16 growth rates by racial ethnic and specific program groups for grades 3-‐6 combined (Figures 3 and 4):

• Figure 3 reports the percent of students in each racial ethnic group who met or exceeded their individual growth targets in math and in reading for 2015-‐16. Results are combined across grades 3-‐6. Overall district and national norm group performance is provided for comparison. Please note: the American Indian group reported here is small (n=15) and is therefore




vulnerable to more fluctuation than large groups. • With the exception of American Indian students in math, all racial ethnic

groups had growth rates very close to or exceeding the national norm group. Asian students showed considerably higher growth rates in math than in reading. Hispanic students had a similar pattern. Because of the small number of American Indian students tested, it is difficult to judge the 23 point difference in math and reading growth rates.

• Figure 4 reports the percent of grade 3-‐6 students in various program and service groups who met or exceeded their individual growth targets in Math and in reading for 2015-‐16. Please note: the Homeless/Highly Mobile group reported here is small (n=24) and is therefore vulnerable to more fluctuation than large groups.

• With the exception of English Learners (both students receiving service and those being monitored following exit from direct service) in reading, all groups had growth rates very close to or exceeding the national norm group. ELL students showed considerably higher growth rates in math than in reading. None of these special groups had exceptionally high growth rates under the now-‐tougher 2015 growth norms. None of them exceeded the overall growth rates for Hopkins students, despite most groups receiving additional instructional support. The growth targets represent average growth for students in the same grade, subject, and starting score; however, in order to close the achievement gap, average growth may not be enough. Low-‐performing students must make accelerated growth.

MAP 2015-‐16 Overall Achievement Figures 5 and 6 examine achievement, not growth. While growth is a valued component of MAP, it is not the only component. We need to monitor our students’ overall achievement levels, comparing them to both the achievement levels of students nationally and to important criterion-‐referenced outcomes, such as MCA grade level proficiency and being on-‐track for meeting the ACT college and career readiness benchmarks. Hopkins achievement compared to national peers (Figures 5 and 6):

• Figures 5 and 6 report the percent of Hopkins students who scored above the grade level median for the 2015 norm group. In other words, these figures report the percent of Hopkins students who scored in the upper half nationally in spring 2016. Spring 2015 scores were recalculated using 2015 norms in order to provide a comparison to 2016 scores.

• In math, overall 67% of Hopkins students scored in the upper half of the national distribution. This is a 2 percentage point decrease from spring 2015. Every grade level had considerably more students in the upper half than did



the national norm group (in spring 2016, percentages ranged from 64% at grades 3 and 4 to 72% at grade 5). Spring 2015 to spring 2016 results varied across grade levels.

• In reading, overall 66% of Hopkins students scored in the upper half of the national distribution. This is a 2 percentage point decrease from spring 2015. Every grade level had considerably more students in the upper half than did the national norm group (in spring 2016, percentages ranged from 63% at grades 3 and 4 to 69% at grade 6). Except for a drop of 4 percentage points at grade 4, 2016 reading results across grade levels were virtually identical to those in 2015.

MAP 2015-‐16 Looking at Growth and Achievement Together As part of the 2015 norms release, the MAP now reports growth percentiles in addition to the typical percentile ranks for achievement. In addition to reporting dichotomous judgments about growth (made growth target or not) and achievement (above 50th percentile or not), we can now examine the intersection of growth and achievement in finer detail. Traditional percentile ranks compare a student’s achievement to his/her peers nationally by reporting the percent of students in the norm group who scored equal to or lower than the student. The new conditional growth percentiles do something similar with growth, allowing a user to compare the growth of students who individually have different growth targets. For both achievement and growth, the national norm is at the 50th percentile. Figure 7 illustrates how achievement and growth percentiles can be plotted on an x y axis to place individual students or groups of students at various points within one of four quadrants: High Achievement/High Growth, High Achievement/Low Growth, Low Achievement/Low Growth, or Low Achievement/High Growth. A measure of central tendency is reported to represent the performance of a group of students. Percentiles are not equal-‐interval scales and so cannot be averaged. Therefore, the median (or middle-‐ranking) percentiles are reported to represent the performance of a group. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate for math and reading respectively that the median percentile ranks for both achievement and growth are higher than the national norm for each of grades 3-‐6 (although grade 5 reading is exactly at the national norm for growth). This places grades 3-‐6 within the High Achievement/High Growth quadrant. While individual students vary greatly in their percentile ranks, groups tend to vary less and be closer to the norm. Figures 10 and 11 plot median achievement and growth for racial ethnic and program groups. Results for overall math and reading percentiles are provided for comparison. Obviously, there is overlap in group membership; a student may be represented in




multiple groups—at the very minimum in the “ALL” category and in a racial ethnic group. Only median scores for Asian and White students are located in the High Achievement/High Growth quadrant for both math and reading. Most groups are fairly close to the (horizontal) expected growth line (50th percentile) but vary quite a bit in terms of their median achievement percentile. While we expect more variation in achievement (particularly since low achievement is often the prerequisite for membership), we do not necessarily expect great variation for growth. By definition, growth expectations are set based on the performance of students in the same grade and subject and who share a similar starting score. ELL students (including former ELL students still being monitored) show the lowest median growth scores in reading (39th percentile) but are virtually at the national norm for growth in math (49th percentile). This situation may require further analysis. It is possible that a sizable portion of ELL students do not share the same growth patterns of non-‐ELL students with similar starting scores. Homeless students have the lowest achievement in both math and reading, but their growth approaches the norm. Please note: because of the relatively small numbers of students in the American Indian and Homeless groups, those results are more subject to the fluctuations of individual students. Implications and Conclusions MAP testing results are useful to our work as educational professionals on many levels:

• At the classroom level, these results give teachers important information about individual student understanding and achievement in specific areas of reading and mathematics. This information provides a basis for the development of school-‐based interventions and support, as well as important conversations with families as they work with their child.

• At the school level, administrators and teacher teams can examine the learning results for specific grade levels and groups of students, using this information to reflect on how instruction is delivered and reinforced. It also provides specific information on which to set school-‐wide achievement goals.

• Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are able to sort MAP data within their classrooms and grade level for a more detailed analysis of which students are showing growth and which are in need of further support.

• We are able to use MAP data to project which students may be at risk of not meeting proficiency targets on the MCA tests. This provides teachers and principals with greater clarity of focus for some instructional and programming resources.

• Professional development can be developed to support the deeper



analysis and use of student test data to inform instruction. • Curriculum coordinators use information on student performance

within specific instructional strands to review and strengthen curriculum materials and delivery in order to improve student learning.

• MAP tests are an important component of our elementary Response to Intervention (RtI) program, providing a data element to consider in our instructional grouping of students. Individual student progress is reviewed a minimum of three times each school year.

As we continue our use and deepening analysis of MAP testing, we believe we will be able to help students, families, and teachers more clearly identify areas in which to celebrate, and those that require additional attention.

Report to the School Board 2015-‐16 Measures of Academic

Progress (MAP) Results

November 15, 2016 Report prepared by Karen Terhaar, Director of Teaching & Learning

and Kathryn O’Gorman, Assessment Coordinator

Looking at Growth

56%51%

58% 58% 56%58% 58% 56%61%

57%50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hopkins Combined Grades

Hopkins Gr 3 Hopkins Gr 4 Hopkins Gr 5 Hopkins Gr 6 National Norm Group

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

Figure 1: MAP Math Growth 2015-16 compared to 2014-15What percent of Hopkins students met or exceeded their Fall to Spring

individual growth target?

2014-15 (2015 Norms) 2015-16 (2015 norms)

58% 56%60% 59% 59%

56% 58%55% 52%

59%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

Figure 2: MAP Reading Growth 2015-16 compared to 2014-15What percent of Hopkins students met or exceeded their Fall to Spring

individual growth target?

2014-15 (2015 Norms) 2015-16 (2015 norms)

Growth by Racial Ethnic and Program Groups

58%

40%

69%

54%49%

62%56%

63%57%

48%51%

60%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ALL Amer Indian Asian Hispanic Black White National Norm Group

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

Math Reading

Figure 3: MAP Growth 2015-16 by Racial Ethnic GroupWhat percent of Hopkins students met or exceeded their Fall to Spring individual growth

target? Combined grades 3-6

58%52%

48%51% 50% 50%

56%

44%49%

52% 50%54%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ALL ELL (& monitored)

Spec Ed RTI FRP Lunch Homeless National Norm Group

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

Math Reading

Figure 4: MAP Growth 2015-16 by Program GroupWhat percent of Hopkins students by special program group met or exceeded their Fall to Spring

individual growth target? Combined grades 3-6

Looking at Overall Achievement

69%65%

69% 70%73%

67% 64% 64%

72%68%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

2014-15 (2015 Norms) 2015-16 (2015 norms)

Figure 5: MAP Math Achievement Spring 2016 compared to Spring 2015

How does Hopkins' achievement compare to students nationally? In particular, what percent of Hopkins students score in top half nationally?

68%63%

71%67% 69%66%

63%67% 67% 69%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

2014-15 (2015 Norms) 2015-16 (2015 norms)

Figure 6: MAP Reading Achievement Spring 2016 compared to Spring 2016

How does Hopkins' achievement compare to students nationally? In particular, what percent of Hopkins students score in top half nationally?

Combining Growth and Achievement

Figure 7: Achievement and Growth Combined Using Achievement and Growth PercenQles

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Growth PercenQ

le – Fall to Sprin

g

Achievement PercenQle – Spring 2016

High Achievement, High Growth

Low Achievement, Low Growth

Low Achievement, High Growth

High Achievement, Low Growth

Figure 8: 2015-‐16 Median Math Achievement and Growth PercenQles by Grade Level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MED

IAN Growth PercenQ


g

MEDIAN Achievement PercenQle – Spring

Gr 5 Math

Gr 4 Math Gr 3 Math Gr 6 Math

Figure 9: 2015-‐16 Median Reading Achievement and Growth PercenQles by Grade Level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian Growth PercenQ


g

Median Achievement PercenQle – Spring

Gr 3 Reading Gr 4 Reading

Gr 5 Reading

Gr 6 Reading

Figure 10: 2015-‐16 Median Math Achievement and Growth PercenQles by Racial Ethnic and Program Group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian Growth PercenQ


g


Asian (n=141) Hispanic

(n=207)

Amer. Indian (n=15)

White (n=1034)

Black (n=453)

ALL Math

Homeless (n=24)

RTI (n=317)

ELL (n=268)

FRP (n=611)

Spec Ed (n=274)

Figure 11: 2015-‐16 Median Reading Achievement and Growth PercenQles by Racial Ethnic and Program Group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian Growth PercenQ


g


Amer. Indian (n=16)

Hispanic (n=206)

Asian (n=140)

White (n=1035)

Black (n=454)

ALL Reading Homeless (n=24)

ELL (n=266)

RTI (n=342)

Spec Ed (n=279)

FRP (n=608)

Key Takeaways •  New norms are tougher, par\cularly in math growth

•  Growth and achievement under the new norms make math and reading results more similar than in the past.

•  Each grade level performs above the norm in both growth and achievement, for both math and reading.

•  Special program groups show lower growth than the tested group as a whole. ELL students are par\cularly low in reading growth.