M.A.P. 101
A question was asked about MAP (Measures of Academic Progress), a new computer tool that students in grades K-9 will be using in 79 schools for assessments in reading and math starting this year. It will be used 3 times a year. Refer to my thread on the last School Board meeting for the latest updates from staff to the Board.
The district will be discontinuing the district DRA requirement in grades K and 1, discontinuing the Edusoft math benchmark assessments in elementary and middle school, and discontinuing the PSAT in 9th grade.
Here are some links and additional information.
The district will be discontinuing the district DRA requirement in grades K and 1, discontinuing the Edusoft math benchmark assessments in elementary and middle school, and discontinuing the PSAT in 9th grade.
Here are some links and additional information.
- PDF overview
- Memo from Dr. Goodloe-Johnson to all principals
- From the SPS updates for the Strategic Plan:
- I know there is a document outlines the costs (which are fairly high - you have to buy a subscription, software, etc.) but I can't find it.
Comments
Excellence for All set student assessment as a top priority in Seattle Public Schools (SPS).
OK so where are the Fall 2008 PSAT results if assessment is a top priority?
I think MAP is $12 per year per child for three rounds during the year. So around $4 a shot. (This is from memory, talking to Brad B about a year ago.)
The PSAT will continue to be administered in grades 10 and 11.
Great will we ever see results?
Melissa,
From what I've heard of MAP, these three points you make need correction and/or clarification:
"•by this time next year, teachers will have MAP data to help them"
In fact, some results fomr MAP will be immediately available to teachers, and then, once tests are uploaded from the District server (or school's?) to the NWEA organization's computers, further enhanced results will be available in 24-48 hours. So results will be available to educators not after a year, but within days.
The result, "RIT" scores (Rasch unIT scores) place a student on a continum overall in math and reading, then are also broken down into strands (i.e. Lit Comp) so a teacher can see a chart showing which students are behind in LC, and by how much, which are "at level," and which are above level.
Pretty handy tool. IF students take the test seriously as a methjod for them to show their best selves so educators can help them where they're at.
Of course, some students will just punch keys...hence:
"•they mentioned needing to "motivate" students to do their best and they will hold conferences with students about MAP scores and goals"
The conference part seems idealistic: For instance, HS LA teacher; 125 students; five minutes each = 10.5 hours of conference....when was this going to happen? My feeling is that students will be presented information about MAP in groups, perhaps using the Powerpoint available to assist with this task, and educators will plead, beg, bribe for best efforts on these tests.
My guess is that 10 percent will blow it off unless there is mediation done to avoid this.
Still, that leaves ninety percent of students giving their best...And as this system is adaptive (student is given a question - does well, gets harder question. Not so well? Easier question...) it has the potential of giving very valuable feedback IF it is augmented by other classroom assessments that correlate levels in various strands...
Overall, a potentially useful assesssment, and one that is immediately usable, is the same across schools, and uses data to present a snapshot of a student's levels that COULD be very helpful, if correlated and if differentiation follows the various levels thus exposed. (Of course, even without differentiation, MAP might give educators a mean, a way to see where MOST students are at, level-wise, and teach above that level...hopefully, differentiation would accompany this to get the "outliers" - ack, there's and over-used term! - but that's a whole 'nother expectation, with its accompnaying demands on teacher time and training.
The tests are good but not only do students need to take them seriously, as seattle citizen points out, but teachers need to be able to use the data. For teachers in struggling schools, knowing that 80% of their students are below grade level in every measure is really not helpful at all -- we know it! Another measure isn't really going to do a whole lot for those kids...
"For teachers in struggling schools, knowing that 80% of their students are below grade level in every measure is really not helpful at all -- we know it! Another measure isn't really going to do a whole lot for those kids..."
Thank you, and thank you again, Helene! That point appears to be completely lost in so much of the discussion of the MAP.
How much of this computerization complements and ADDS to the educational experience, and how much of it merely replaces what we already have.
Switching from a pencil to a pen may work better, but does it result in a better writer?
While a teacher may know that 80% of the students aren't at grade level, I'd like to think MAP will individualize that so that a teacher will know where a student is struggling.
Another, more detailed look, would show strands. Here are the students between RIT 120-130 in Lit Comp. Here are the students between RIT 180-190 in Vocabulary."
I'm not certain how detailed it gets after that. But I think the purpose is to individualize the lessons. This presupposes the tools and training are available to do that.
As Helene points out, there are issues with access, time, etc. in finding information that a teacher might find helpful. Some if will be (or won't) the ol' standby, "buy-in." some will be whether the system actually works, and if it can be improved regularly to fix it when problems are identified.
It will be costly, and it might never get off the ground, but I believe there are potential benefits to be had. If it can efficiently supply more data about individual students, without being too difficult to navigate or utilize, great. If it doesn't make it too easy for teachers to say, "That there is RIT 162," instead of "He there is Johnny," all the better.
My hope was that the MAP might inspire some changes in the Central Admins monolithic ineffective approach to math.
After reading the above, MAP may wind up as yet another tool for blame the teacher.
I would really like to see at the middle level interdisciplinary teams of four teachers: Math, Science, Lang. Arts, & Social Studies that move with a group of 120 students in a three year loop.
The entire team moves from 6th grade, to 7th, to 8th. Then MAP could be used by the teacher to aid figuring out what is going on and to improve their practice. Parents have an ongoing three year connection with the teacher. If the principal needs to put a teacher on an improvement plan, this can be done more realistically as there is a longer track record with students.
I would also like to see a two year loop at grades 4 and 5. Is a two year loop at grades 2 and 3 realistic?
Melissa and seattle citizen, it is possible to get detailed scores for students but it takes a lot of digging to get to and it's based on a static roster. So if Sally K. transferred into my class part way through the semester, I have to find her current instructor and run a report on that class to get her data. The only way the data is presented is through student goal setting worksheets that disaggregate scores (Word Recognition, Reading Comprehension, Know Text Components, Think Critical (sic) & Analyze, Read: Variety of Purpose for Reading and Number Sense, Measurement, Geometric Sense, Probability & Statistics and Algebraic Sense for Mathematics). There's no way for me to get a spreadsheet of all scores, look for trends in my classes, etc.
If that data were easily available, say in the Source or even just as a spreadsheet, then it could be a very useful resource. I do think that it's more useful for identifying and targeting weaknesses in middle-of-the-road students that may just have a few misconceptions. Weak students tend to have low scores across the board.
I hear NWEA is working on making their reporting system better. I hope so.
Does this mean they will pick one test and qualify ALL students, or will some students be qualified using WASL scores and others with MAP?