District uses MAP data to enhance and support student learning
Downers Grove Grade School District 58 reviewed its winter 2018 Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment results with the Board of Education during a Curriculum Workshop on Monday, Feb. 26. Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Justin Sisul presented key celebrations, as well as areas for growth, as demonstrated within the assessment results.
“The winter MAP results showed that District 58 students continue to demonstrate high levels of achievement in reading and math overall, exceeding the national median scores in all areas,” Sisul said. “There is much to celebrate in reviewing our student performance data; however, results also reveal specific areas in which some grade level math performance is less strong when compared with other grade levels in District 58. Analyzing both the strengths and opportunities will help to guide our ongoing evaluation of curricular programs and student learning.”
When compared to all students nationwide who take the MAP assessment, the median District 58 student performed at the following levels:
|
Grade Level |
Winter 2018 Median Percentile in Reading |
Winter 2018 Median Percentile in Math |
National Median |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Kindergarten |
78th |
80th |
50th |
|
First Grade |
87th |
86th |
50th |
|
Second Grade |
74th |
72nd |
50th |
|
Third Grade |
76th |
69th |
50th |
|
Fourth Grade |
74th |
64th |
50th |
|
Fifth Grade |
73rd |
66th |
50th |
|
Sixth Grade |
76th |
67th |
50th |
|
Seventh Grade |
78th |
72nd |
50th |
|
Eighth Grade |
79th |
74th |
50th |
The Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) administers the MAP assessment and provides comparison achievement data for schools, essentially ranking average school or grade level MAP scores against national performance norms established through data collected from more than 68,000 schools nationwide. When compared to national school-based norms, District 58’s MAP achievement greatly exceeded the national average. Based on the achievement percentile data, each grade level in District 58 performs above the 90th percentile in reading and exceeds the 80th percentile in math. The national average achievement percentile is 50. However, Sisul acknowledged that these data stand in contrast with the District’s PARCC performance levels, a difference that the District is currently examining.
In addition to measuring school and student achievement, the MAP assessment also provides growth scores. Growth scores measure the progress each student makes on the MAP test between fall 2018 and winter 2018, as compared to other students nationwide who achieved similar scores in the fall. The MAP test projects that 50 percent of students should meet or exceed their growth target.
In District 58, the median student at all grade levels met or exceeded his or her growth target. This means that not only is the median District 58 student achieving above national average, he or she is also learning more throughout the school year than the median student nationwide.
Here are District 58’s grade level MAP growth scores:
|
Grade Level |
Winter 2018: Percent of Students Who Met or Exceeded Growth Projection in Reading |
Winter 2018: Percent of Students Who Met or Exceeded Growth Projection in Math |
National Median |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Kindergarten |
72 percent |
76 percent |
50th |
|
First Grade |
75 percent |
84 percent |
50th |
|
Second Grade |
66 percent |
58 percent |
50th |
|
Third Grade |
63 percent |
55 percent |
50th |
|
Fourth Grade |
62 percent |
50 percent |
50th |
|
Fifth Grade |
64 percent |
53 percent |
50th |
|
Sixth Grade |
68 percent |
66 percent |
50th |
|
Seventh Grade |
61 percent |
62 percent |
50th |
|
Eighth Grade |
59 percent |
53 percent |
50th |
“While one winter data point should never be considered conclusive, reviewing historical data shows us a trend of both growth and achievement in math that is lower in our intermediate grades than in other grade levels,” Sisul said. “It is now our responsibility to investigate the cause of these trends at a district level; it is important to emphasize that these trends do not focus on teacher effectiveness, but rather whether our exemplary teaching staff has curricular resources of consistent quality across grade levels.”
Sisul added that the Math Committee will review these data to search for that specific cause, and hopefully to determine steps for improvement.
“Are we providing our teachers with appropriately rigorous resources and instructional strategies to meet students’ needs? Are there gaps in our math blueprint (curriculum) that need to be specifically addressed? Focusing on questions such as these will help us to identify action steps to ensure that our achievement and growth in math is at the high level we expect for our students across all grade levels,” Sisul said. “This is the time to review the data, reflect on our progress and make decisions on what we will do to improve our growth.”
Beyond the Math Committee’s work with the MAP data, Sisul said that all District 58 administrators, principals and teachers use the data to review and ultimately improve student learning. At the District level, curriculum committees and the administrative team analyze MAP data to make improvements to the curriculum. At the classroom level, teachers and principals review individual student achievement and growth data to help identify students who need interventions and enrichment, as well as to guide student goal-setting.