Seattle Schools MAP Plan for 2013-2014
From Superintendent Banda via SPS Communications (red highlight mine):
The
Task Force also provided a list of guidelines for the future, which we
are taking into consideration. You can read the full report online here:
ATF Final Report.
In addition, you can read the detailed plan moving forward online here: MAP
Implementation Plan
In
February we formed a Task Force on Assessments and Measuring Progress
to review our testing policies and explore concerns about the Measures
of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment. This group,
comprised of principal, teacher, student, family and community
representatives, met eight times and developed a list of recommendations
for the 2013-14 school year.
I
want to thank this group for their time and efforts. This proved to be
an effective and productive opportunity to work together to develop
constructive solutions that put students first while
addressing the concerns raised by some of our staff. I look forward to
ongoing discussions about the use of assessments to support teaching and
learning in our district.
Based
on this Task Force’s feedback, I am making the following decisions
regarding the MAP assessment for the 2013-14 school year:
·
- Continue the use of MAP in kindergarten through 8th grade in 2013-14.
·
- High
schools may opt out of MAP in 2013-14, but must provide evidence of a
way to assess and monitor progress of students who are below standard in
math and
reading. In addition, the high school must follow their typical
school-level decision-making process (which might include a school
committee or staff vote).
· -
Administer the MAP assessment twice a year, with mandatory MAP assessments for fall and spring, but optional for winter.
· - Use
MAP in conjunction with other data points in making programmatic
decisions for students. Do not use MAP data in isolation for placement
in programs.
·
- Look
beyond the next school year to explore new assessments. We will create a
smaller working group/task force to evaluate future assessment options
and make
recommendations for testing starting in the 2014-15 school year.
Using
data is important in our work as educators. Across Seattle Public
Schools, we use multiple forms of data to help guide classroom
instruction and measure progress. For many of our teachers
and principals, the MAP assessment provides critical data to help
screen the most vulnerable students for additional academic support and
more personalized attention and to measure their growth and improvement
over time. We cannot abandon this important data.
But we can do a better job making sure our teachers are trained, the
technology is in place for our students and that our families understand
when and why we are conducting assessments.
In
a survey administered by the Seattle Education Association, our
teachers union, the majority of K-12 Seattle teachers said they believe
the MAP assessment is effective or somewhat effective
in identifying students for additional support, interventions or
accommodations. A majority of teachers also said the MAP assessment is
effective or somewhat effective in measuring and charting student
progress over time.
Moving
forward, we will work together to determine the most effective way to
assess our students and how we use that data. I will create a new
ongoing working group to monitor our assessments
and work on recommendations for the 2014-15 school year and beyond.
Again, I want to thank the task force for their work, which included members taking the MAP test themselves. I am looking forward to our continued partnership with staff,
families and the community in developing a plan that outlines how we use and administer assessments in the future.
Comments
I am curious then how will they decide the Algebra 1 placement in 6th grade? Will they listen to the teacher recommendations? Will they have the students do algebra readiness test?
HIMS mom
Skeptical Parent
HIMSmom
Chris S. - I agree, NAEYC does not support standardized testing of children before 3rd grade/8yrs and that goes for adaptive computer-based assessments as well as paper-based tests.
CHM
"Screener for placement in accelerated 6th grade math courses: MAP is used by the District to determine which 6th grade students are eligible for placement in accelerated math courses as they enter middle school. The Task Force was skeptical of this use of MAP, and expressed a clear preference that MAP not be used as the sole criteria for high-stakes decisions that impact a child’s educational future. The majority of the members scored this criterion as unfavorable. "
If the district is going to have all Seattle middle schools follow the recommendations of the task force regarding math, they had better get on it. I know HIMS is already setting schedules. I am sure other schools are equally busy.
-pickle
Mr. White
When you say schools are setting schedules, do you mean they are setting individual student schedules, or blocking schedules for classes and teachers?
curious
Here's my draft expert recommendations, tell me if I should write something else
Isn't it reassuring that she is now heading up the $40M RTT funding at our friendly ESD?
I learned that the MAP test for Spring for 2nd graders at Kimball Elementary was changed from the "Primary" to "Intermediate" test. My daughter came home really upset that she had a very difficult time with the test on this round. When I asked her teacher about it, I was told that the district decided to change the test two weeks ago and no reason was given. The teacher was quite upset as she expects a significant drop in test scores and many of our ELL students were really struggling. Was this change implemented at all schools and how will this effect eligibility for Spectrum? I was told that the test questions went from 2nd grade appropriate questions to 4th grade level content.
It didn't make sense as he is already doing math at a level that my daughters did in second grade.
-StepJ
Suppose a 2nd grader took the Spring MAP test for math and had a RIT score of 205. For 2nd grade, this would put them in the 87th percentile. For the same RIT score in 3rd grade, it would put them in the 58th percentile. The difference is huge, especially when you consider 87% is the eligibility point for Spectrum. If the 3+ test was administered to 2nd graders, without adjusting the reported percentiles, wow.
NWEA 2011 RIT Scale Norms
MAP skeptic
Helen Schinske
The younger test is sometimes given to 2nd graders if they need headphones (so the questions are read to them).
I don't think the district made a change. Kimball may have. Our school has always administered the 2-5 to 2nd-5th graders, except as appropriate (for kids who needed the headphones because of reading issues).
-seen it
-Seen it
watcher
I just looked at the strand information for my daughter's scores and the strand titles (what each strand is measuring) are different. All her K-Fall of 2nd grade strands are the same and her W and SP 2nd grade strands in both reading and math have changed. This leads me to believe her school gave the 2nd graders the intermediate test beginning in winter. Don't know for sure.
She went up slightly in reading with the switch (which has shown the steady rise you'd expect), and went up more dramatically with the math, but her scores in math have been more up and down, so less informative.
~JA Mom
- seen it