Tamara Griffith
Quantitative Growth
"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."
~Ben Franklin
Over the course of the school year, students take the Northwest Evaluation Association's (NWEA) Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) three times to assess student growth over the course of the school year and to project students' readiness for the Florida Standards Assessment (FSA). This rigorous, standardized assessment is adaptive, meaning that the questions students receive are catered to their demonstrated ability; if students answer a question correctly, they are given a harder question, and if they answer a question incorrectly, they are given easier questions until they begin to obtain correct answers. As a result, students may be answering questions associated with lower or higher grade-levels so that their true proficiency levels, strengths, and needs can be assessed and measured. As a result, the assessment provides me with a ready for instruction (RIT) score, which allows me to immediately begin addressing students' needs as necessary in individual, small group, or whole group settings.
Overview of MAP:
Ultimately, MAP differs from many other standardized assessments in that it is personalized in nature. This personalization comes in the form of an adaptable test that automatically adjusts to students' observable progress; students are given easier or more challenging questions based upon their observed competencies. As students demonstrate greater levels of academic proficiencies, they are given more rigorous, challenging questions. Thus, no two students receive the exact same test; instead, these standardized assessments are individualized based upon students' demonstrated instructional levels.
Once MAP has been administered, students receive a Ready for Instruction Today (RIT) score. This RIT score demonstrates students' strengths and needs based upon content specific learning strands (literature, information, and vocabulary acquisition) and based upon individual standards. Additionally, because MAP is aligned to the FSA, students' RIT scores also project proficiency on our end of year standardized assessment.
As a result, I utilize MAP data to:
-
pair/ group students based upon their performance by standard
-
identify skills that students are ready to learn
-
adapt instruction and instructional strategies to best meet students' strengths and need
-
differentiate instruction for all learners
-
evaluate the effectiveness of prior instruction
-
plan intervention and enrichment
-
identify standards that need to be retaught, enriched, or spiraled
-
identify standards that have been mastered
-
determine students' Lexile, or reading, levels
-
analyze student growth over time
-
communicate student growth with both students and parents
After each administration of MAP, I conference with my students about their RIT scores; we discuss what this score means and how this score correlates to the FSA. Because students and I frequently discuss the importance of high achievement on both of these standardized assessments, students are aware of the significance of their data, particularly of their achievement over time. Achievement on both the FSA and MAP determine students' placements for the subsequent school year; students who do not demonstrate grade-level proficiency are placed into intensive reading classes for remediation while students who consistently demonstrate on and/or above grade-level proficiency on these standardized assessments are placed into advanced language arts classes for enrichment.
In order to communicate the rigor necessary for both grade-level proficiency and college and career readiness, I send annotated MAP reports home for each student. In these annotations, I translate students' Lexile levels to grade level proficiency and students' RIT score to FSA achievement levels (1 below grade-level, 2 unsatisfactory, 3 grade-level, 4 proficient, and 5 mastery). In addition, I call each parent personally to explain students' results in more detail and to explicate how instruction will be tailored to meet that student's observed needs and strengths in order to propel him/her to the next level of proficiency. Another reason I contact parents individually is so they are able to ask me specific questions about their child's progress and to discuss specific ways in which they can help foster students' dramatic academic growth at home as well.
For more information about this assessment, check out their website here.
Sample MAP Reading Questions:
The document below showcases sample questions for reading and contains information regarding how these questions correlate to RIT bands. Moreover, these sample questions provide insight into what kinds of questions students are able to answer correctly at each RIT level. Consequently, I utilize these sample questions as additional practice during do nows, embedded within independent practice, or as exit tickets. Not only does this allow me to continually assess students progress, but it also allows students to become familiar with test item structure for both the MAP and FSA assessments.
The questions contained within the NWEA user guide above correlate to specific strands of the Florida standards, namely language and editing standards, key ideas and details standards, and craft and structure standards. In addition, the sample questions specified for the 211-220 RIT band correlate to 6th grade proficiency. RIT bands below 210 indicate below grade-level proficiency while RIT bands above 220 indicate above grade-level proficiency. Due to the adaptive nature of this assessment, students may receive questions from different RIT bands to accurately assess their current levels.
To get a better understanding of the adaptability of this assessment, click the button below to take a short, 9-11 question sample MAP assessment.
MAP Scoring Chart:
MAP is a standardized assessment that is utilized across the country. As a result, students' RIT scores are compared to other students who have also taken this assessment to determine students' range of ability. This range of ability is referred to as a RIT band. This RIT band indicates students' skills according to normed grade level proficiencies. In addition, MAP calculates a growth projection for each student based upon his/her RIT score. This growth projection allows me to gauge whether or not students are making adequate or dramatic progress, allowing me to make the necessary changes to instruction to ensure that students are making academic gains that will ultimately open doors for them.
To assist both parents and students with understanding how students' RIT score translates to national grade level proficiency, I share the following chart provided by NWEA.
As highlighted in this chart, students considered on grade level during all three assessments typically have a RIT score of 211 at the beginning of the year, 214 during the middle of the year, and a 216 at the end of the year. Thus, nationally, students typically increase their RIT score by about 5 points in the 6th grade and is thus indicative of average growth or progress.
Additionally, MAP is aligned to the FSA students take for the Florida's end of year assessment. The annotated chart below, which was taken from NWEA, explicates the correlation between MAP and FSA level proficiency.
As indicated in the annotations, Florida state grade-level proficiency ranges from a 212 RIT score at the beginning of the year to a 217 RIT score at the end of the school year. Although the grade-level range is slightly higher for Florida than it is for the nationally normed grade-level range of proficiency, students state-wide also demonstrate an average growth of approximately 5 RIT points over the course of the school year. Thus, an average year's growth is approximately 5 RIT points.
Data & Analysis:
Since my students have not yet been administered the end of year MAP, I have included the beginning-of-year (BOY) and middle-of-year (MOY) reading data from the 2017-2018 school year below, which demonstrates dramatic academic growth. Additionally, total growth is projected for the end-of-year assessment.
Above is the BOY language arts data for some of my regular sixth grade students. Early in the year, the average or Mean RIT of tested students (203.1) was well below the national Mean RIT of 211 for sixth graders at the beginning of the school year. In fact, this class's Mean RIT was comparable to the Mean RIT of fourth graders during the middle of the school year. When this is taken in to consideration with the fact that only 7-8 students scored on- or above-level when compared to district and national averages, it is clear that the majority of my students were below grade-level at the beginning of the year.
Above is the MOY language arts data for the same group of regular language arts students after 20 weeks of instruction. The Mean RIT score for this class jumped up to 210.6, which is indicative of an average growth of 7.5 RIT points. This RIT growth is higher than the average expected RIT growth of 5 points per year. Moreover, this same group of students that was performing at a mid-year fourth grade level is now performing at a BOY 6th grade level, a growth of 1.5 years half-way through the school year, thereby demonstrating dramatic academic growth.
Comparing BOY and MOY data allows me to ascertain where and how my students are showing growth in each of the content strands. Because so many of my students were low in vocabulary acquisition early on, I was able to embed skills and strategies such as context clues and affixes within lessons centered around a variety of literary and informative texts. As a result, student performance in this strand improved; while 36% of students in this class were considered low at the BOY, only 24% remained low at the MOY, showing a growth of 12% half way through the year.
In general, skills that I taught explicitly demonstrated even higher growth. For example, after analyzing BOY data for all of my classes, I noticed that all of them were weakest in the area of informational text. By weakest, I mean that this strand had the greatest percentage of students who were considered low. As a result, I explicitly taught informational texts and embedded this type of text into almost every unit. Consequently, students showed drastic improvement. For example, as the BOY data above indicates, students scored a Mean RIT of 204 in the informational strand, which is indicative of a mid-year fourth grade level. By the MOY, the Mean RIT had jumped to 213, a jump of 9 RIT points -- almost double the standard yearly growth. Since the average performance of a 6th grade student at the MOY is 214, students demonstrated just under two years of academic growth with this strand during half a year of instruction.
Students demonstrated similar results with the literature strands, which I also taught explicitly. At the BOY, 36% of students were considered low. The Mean RIT in this strand was a 201, which is comparable to a fourth grade level. By the MOY, students increased the Mean RIT in this strand to 209, an increase of 8 RIT points, which is also well above the average of 5 RIT points a year and is indicative of a year and a half's worth of growth. Additionally, only 20% of students were considered low in this area during the MOY assessment, thus showing a 16% improvement half way through the year. Provided students continue to demonstrate this high academic achievement throughout the remainder of the school year, they are well on the path of demonstrating two years worth of growth, as projected below.
When analyzing the existing data in conjunction with the spring growth projections provided by MAP, my students are expected to grow an average of 10 RIT points, which is indicative of 2 years growth according to national guidelines and trends. At the beginning of the school year, the majority of my students were performing on grade-level, with only 25% on track. It is projected that at the end of the year, 38% of my students will be considered on grade-level, while the majority of others will be just below, having moved from an average mid-year fourth grade level to a mid-year sixth grade level, thus demonstrating the type of high academic achievement that will open doors and opportunities for students.
Individual Student Samples:
In addition to analyzing MAP data on a class level, I also analyzed data to assess individual student need. Some of these analyses are included below to showcase a variety of student need: gifted, regular, ELL, and special education. Note: names have been removed to protect student identity. The first page below is from Fall 2017 after 2 weeks of instruction; the second page is from winter/ mid-year testing, which took place after 20 weeks of instruction.
The students highlighted above were chosen to demonstrate that students demonstrated dramatic academic growth regardless of labels and special needs. All students - high-performing, average-performing, and low-performing alike -- all demonstrated growth at remarkable rates. These trends were visible across all of my classes.
Out of all of my students, my special education populations overall demonstrated the most growth, likely due to my previous experience as a special education teacher. Student 1 demonstrates the quite dramatic growth many students receiving special education services demonstrated in my classroom. One of the ways this student demonstrated significant academic gains is through his reading ability, which MAP assesses through a Lexile Level. To correlate students' Lexile levels to grade-level proficiency, I utilized this Lexile to grade-level conversion sheet. At the BOY, this student was reading at a BR level, meaning that he/she was a beginning reader, thus reading below a first grade level. By MOY, this student's Lexile level increased to 645L, typical of a 3rd-4th grade level. Thus, this student was able to show almost four year's worth of reading growth. This student did not only improve his/her able to read and comprehend text, however. This student also demonstrated dramatic academic growth by increasing his/her RIT score by 39 points, where the average student only grows 5 RIT points. The academic gains made by this student and the other special education students with similar data opened the doors of literacy, thereby allowing these students to not only overcome the stigma associated with learning disabilities, but also allowed them to reach uncharted degrees of success.
In addition to explicitly teaching my content, I also work with a variety of English Language Learners to develop their English proficiency. I have ELL students who speak a variety of languages: Spanish, Japanese, Tagalog, and Russian. Despite learning English as a second language, this subgroup was also able to demonstrate significant academic growth from the BOY to MOY. For example, Student 2 is an ELL student who grew by 18 RIT points from BOY to MOY. In addition, this student increased his/ her reading level; initially, he/she read at at 2.5 grade reading level. By the MOY, he/she read at a 4.7 grade reading level, an improvement of 2.2 years.
Throughout my classes, I also teach a variety of students who are deemed regular. These students are typical students who receive no accommodations or modifications for special education, ELL, or 504, nor are they included in an advanced class. As student 3 above indicates, even my regular students made dramatic academic gains. For example, this student increased her RIT by 12 points from BOY to MOY, which shifted her from the 41% at the BOY to 63% at the MOY. Based on her RIT, she began the school year with a RIT of 203, which is indicative of a fourth grade level. Her RIT at the MOY was a 219, which is indicative of a seventh grade student at the EOY. Thus, this student was able to make nearly three years worth of academic growth in half a year.
In addition, I also have students who qualify for advanced placement and/or who are identified as gifted. Student 4 is representative of this subgroup of students. This student exceeded his/her growth projection of 2 RIT points while maintaining a performance in the 85th percentile. Even though this student performed above grade level initially, he/she was still able to show 1.1 years growth in terms of Lexile levels. In the BOY data, this student's Lexile was 969L, correlating to a 6.7 grade reading level. By MOY, this student's Lexile jumped to 1023L, correlating to a 7.8 grade reading level. Even though this population did not make as much growth as the other subgroups, the academic gains made by my gifted students will still open doors and pathways to opportunity for them as they continue to achieve.
Unlike most standardized tests, I am able to assess students' individual needs, strengths, and areas of growth for specific strands and standards, thereby allowing me to modify, adapt, and differentiate instruction to further facilitate student achievement. MAP provides specific information and suggestions indicating what skills students are ready to learn. By taking this information and data into account when planning lessons, I can better plan for student misconceptions, prior knowledge, and student readiness. As a result, class time is utilized more efficiently because I can see how students are growing overtime.
In addition to utilizing individual student profiles to plan, modify, and differentiate instruction, I also share these profiles with students and parents. These individual profiles clearly depict student growth and performance over time. While this historical data is currently limited as this is our first year with MAP, students, parents, and I will be able to utilize this data to assess not only how well students are progressing this academic year, but they will also be able to determine how much students are progressing over time, thereby allowing patterns to emerge. Utilizing this data allows me to reflect on student progress so that I can accurately set rigorous goals with both students and parents to maintain a high expectation of academic growth.
Click on the image below to review samples of these individual profiles and my reflections regarding students' performance.
Based upon this student's Winter 2018 MAP results, he/she is projected to score a Level 2 on the FSA. While this is below grade level, this student has increased an entire level from the previous year, demonstrating significant growth.
The tremendous academic gains made by this student is indicated by this chart. Analyzing this data shows me that if I continue to push this student so that he/she can surpass his/her projected growth goal, it is not unrealistic to expect him/her to meet grade level expectations, despite beginning the year significantly below grade level.
While this student's academic gains are not as drastic as other subgroups, he/she still demonstrates consistent growth.
Based upon this student's Winter 2018 MAP results, he/she is projected to score a Level 2 on the FSA. While this is below grade level, this student has increased an entire level from the previous year, demonstrating significant growth.
Teacher Reflection:
When I first analyzed my students BOY MAP data, it was evident that there was a significant achievement gap for the majority of my students. With over 70% of my students living at or below the poverty line, it quickly became apparent that I needed to do everything possible to close this achievement gap for my students so that more doors of opportunity would not only be available but would also be accessible to them.
Disaggregating MAP data allowed me to determine students' readiness to learn a particular standard or skill. By analyzing students' prerequisite skills in a given area as assessed by MAP, I was able to determine students' prior knowledge and potential misconceptions in a given area. This allowed me to strategically group students in pairs, collaborative groups, or stations based upon their observed strengths and needs to ensure that my instruction and guided/ independent practice was tailored to meet specific students' needs. Utilizing this data in conjunction with additional formative and summative data allowed me to develop curriculum and instructional strategies that were tailored to students needs. As a result, the achievement gap that my students had demonstrated at the beginning of the year was significantly narrower by mid-year.
By mid-year, average student growth had surpassed the typical yearly growth of sixth graders by 1.5 times, and the number of students considered to be on grade-level jumped from 25% to 38% with the majority of others not far behind. Spring MAP projections predicted Mean RIT growth of 10 RIT points, which is double that which is typically observed by sixth graders and is thus indicative of two year's growth.
Utilizing a data-driven approach has lead to the dramatic academic growth of my students. By continuously utilizing the quantitative data from MAP in addition to qualitative data gleaned from other sources, I have been able to ensure that I am providing students with a curriculum that is appropriately rigorous and continuously pushes my students to make significant academic gains.