Sunday, December 11, 2011

MAP percentiles lower including past tests?

Multiple parents are reporting that past MAP test percentiles for their children have been lowered in The Source, sometimes by very large amounts.

One parent explains, "NWEA publishes new norms every three years, the last norms were done in 2008, so there are new norms for 2011." Another wrote, "If you look on The Source, the percentiles are already in effect for PAST MAP scores ... 2011 norms have been applied to past test scores ... I'm not really worried for our situation ... but what will this mean to the APP program overall? Would they change the cutoff to include lower percentages? OR, will there be FAR fewer students going to APP?"

21 comments :

SomethingLikeMyLife said...

It's not an SPS error. If there is an error it is with the testing/reporting. For end of the year testing in 1st grade reading, a RIT score of 191 WAS 98 percentile, and now is 83 percentile.

2011:
http://www.nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/files/resources/NWEA_2011_RIT_Scale_Norms_0.pdf

2008:
http://www.pickens.it.schoolfusion.us/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/374410/File/MAP/Norms2008.pdf

JB said...

Are scores for kindergarten not adjusted? I looked at my son's scores from last year when he was in K and the percentiles are the same.

dw said...

I can verify that older scores have been retroactively changed.

I think most of us would agree that a recalibration of percentiles is a meaningful thing to do. The problem I have is that previous years' percentiles have been changed, long after the fact. That does not seem reasonable, nor can I understand why they would do that. Also, a 1-2 point change is not surprising, but a drop from 98th percentile to 83rd percentile doesn't feel right.

As for how this will affect APP, I may be in the minority, but I think it will have a somewhat positive effect. From a numbers standpoint, using MAP as a basis for AL entry the past couple years has been a disaster. How is it that APP, which in theory should only comprise 2-4% of SPS students, has as many kids as Spectrum, which (again, in theory) is supposed to cover the next 10+% ? There is a huge system imbalance, and from a facilities and logistics standpoint it's killing our program. If the number of kids entering the program the past couple years isn't somehow reduced, the program will need to be split again, essentially killing it. If you think building support for APP is terrible (look at HIMS), imagine what it would be like with only half the number of kids spread into 2 buildings. Imagine if the new principal was a Kim Whitworth or Chris Cronas, neither of which believe in self-contained gifted classes.

Yes, beefing up the entry criteria, either at an SPS level, or via changing national norms, will tighten access and leave some kids out. But remember, the tools to determine eligibility were changed (actually, many times over the years), resulting in more kids entering, so a reduction would be more of a return to previous levels.

The real problem is that there is a big gap in service between APP and non-APP. Spectrum is supposed to fill that gap, but it's systematically being killed around the district. See the What the Heck is Going on at Wedgwood post on SSS blog for an example.

Until support for Spectrum is vastly improved expect to see APP in a constant state of flux.

Anonymous said...

Do current APP parents need to concern themselves with this; I have ignored MAPS and wonder do I have to worry if my students scores are changed?

Anonymous said...

It's probably more of a program concern than a personal one.

Anonymous said...

@dw - comparing the number of kids that are in APP vs. Spectrum is not an accurate comparison. SPS limits the number of seats in Spectrum, but does not limit APP seats. There could be many more kids that would be in Spectrum, with waiting lists at many schools the proof of that. I know several parents that went the APP route, even with private testing to be assured an advanced learning seat since a Spectrum seat isn't guaranteed.

Not all scores are changed on the Source. I have one child in elementary that did not take the MAP this fall. Those scores from last year have not been update. My son took the MAP this fall at his Middle School and his scores have been updated. Not sure if that has anything to do with it.

I was considering APP for my children. Now with the updated charts, both just miss the cutoff in one subject by one percentage.

in a delimma

Anonymous said...

If you wish to appeal, achievement tests can be retaken for single subjects. If you have qualifying CogAT scores, a qualifying math or reading score, and past test scores that lead you to believe your child may qualify if retested - it may be worth having your child privately tested in a single subject.

Anonymous said...

Is this December MAP fall or winter test?

SomethingLikeMyLife said...

This is the response I got from AL regarding this change: "Apparently, there was a correction in the normative data. I have been told that an explanation will be added to the Source page with the MAP scores to better explain it. However, for our purposes, Advanced Learning will continue to use the 2011 Spring MAP scores as they were reported to you last Spring." (For the purpose of APP qualification this year.)

Anonymous said...

hum. did i miss a memo; they aren't using MAP for qualification they are using it for pre-qualification to then be tested both cogat and math/reading achievement. If they are that is a huge change and should really have been made more widely known.

Also my K kid's scores bumped up from 98m/89r -> 99m/91r

Anonymous said...

From the AL website:

**The Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Test (grades K-1) or the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (grades 2-8) will be administered to students with no MAP scores if CogAT scores are at the 87th percentile or higher (98th percentile for 8th graders).

And if you have MAP scores?

Anonymous said...

ahhh it does read like MAP is being used! That is a big change.

Anonymous said...

For younger students (K-1), I think an additional achievement test may be administered...best to check with AL.

Anonymous said...

I was curious, and logged onto The Source last night... only the scores up through Spring 2011 were posted, with a notice saying (essentially) that there were errors in entering new test score data between Dec 8th and 13th, and that those have been removed.

I just logged back in, and that notice has disappeared.

Puzzled...

Anonymous said...

Well it clearly states that it is MAP now for K-1 and I claim to be informed on these issues...

Also my kid's MAP scores reverted to 98m/89r?

-Thanks for the heads up!

Anonymous said...

I just logged on to The Source, this is what they have posted:

"Some MAP data was loaded into the Source incorrectly during the past week (12/8 - 12/13) . The data on this page should now be consistent with data reported in November. We apologize for the inconvenience and any confusion this may have caused."

Scores were returned to previously reported as in the Spring. But, given the docs from NWEA, it doesn't seem to have been a mistake on SPS behalf. I wonder if it will reflect in new scores.... WEIRD.

Anonymous said...

According to NWEA's FAQ document, the application of the new norms to past results was intentional.

Reporting all results in relation to a single set of
norms allows partners to accurately evaluate trends in performance and improvement over time.

...because the methods for calculating the 2008 and 2011 norms are quite different, it is inappropriate to compare results
using the 2008 norms to those using 2011 norms.


2011 RIT Scale Norms, Frequently Asked Questions, NWEA, 2011

http://dsl.ahsd25.wikispaces.net/file/view/2011+Norms+FAQ.pdf

Anonymous said...

does anyone know where the rit scores broken down by grade/percentile are these days?

Anonymous said...

The very first post has links to both the 2008 and 2011 norms - you can look up RIT to percentile rank conversions grade by grade (by subject and time of year taken).

Anonymous said...

the district needs to decide if APP is an academic acceleration program or a program for gifted children. If the former, MAP scores are fine for determining eligibility since it shows how students perform academically against other students. If it is a program for gifted children, then a more accurate test of cognitive skill, and probably not something that is group applied would be a better gate. Often times gifted children underperform academically until they are correctly reached.

Anonymous said...

Not just gifted kids, but ALL kids perform inadequately until they are reached.