Using MAP in Conjunction
with other Data to Identify
TIER II and III Students
Jennifer Ruth
Elementary Student Achievement Specialist
Plano ISD
Plano ISD Formative Assessment Process
What students have
learned – What they
are ready to learn
Measuring Against
State Standards
MAP
Assessment
TPRI/TLee
How students learn
TELPAS
CogAT
STAAR
Plano ISD
Curriculum
TEKS
ELPS
Verbal
Battery
DesCartes
Instructional
Adaptation:
Classroom
Assessment
Strategies, Scaffolding
Grouping
Differentiation
CogAT
Nonverbal
Battery
CogAT
Quantitative
Battery
Curriculum
Lesson
Development and
Delivery
NWEA Linking Study
NWEA Linking Study
Our Probability Ranges
Reading
Original Phase-In Plan 3
TAKS Proficiency
2011-2012
14/40 correct
35%
Phase In 1 Standard
2012-2013
Scale Score: 1331
20/40 correct
50%
rd
Grade Reading
Recommended
Standard
2016 and beyond
Scale Score: 1468
30/40 correct
Phase In 2 Standard
75%
2014-2015
Scale Score: 1400
25/40 correct
63%
Current Phase-In Plan 3
rd
Grade Reading
Gradual STAAR Standard Plan
Phase In 2
2016 - 2018
Scale Score: 1372
23/40 correct
58%
Phase In 1
2012-2015
Scale Score: 1331
20/40 correct
TAKS Proficiency 50%
Phase In 3
2019 - 2021
Scale Score: 1427
27/40 correct
68%
Recommended
Standard
2022 and beyond
Scale Score: 1468
30/40 correct
75%
100%
1.0
90%
0.9
80%
0.8
70%
0.7
60%
0.6
50%
0.5
40%
0.4
30%
0.3
20%
0.2
10%
0.1
0%
0.0
160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260
Current Spring RIT Reading
Probability of Meeting Level II Standard at Each RIT Score
Percent Achieving STAAR Level II (NEW Phase-in 2)
MAP to STAAR: Reading – Grade 5
Probability of State Standards Success
259
262
264
266
268
253
246
239
229
217
203
203
216
211
238
233
232
227
227
229
221
224
241
236
233
244
239
236
246
241
238
248
243
249
244
239
240
70% Chance of Level III
Well Prepared
90% or higher of Level II
Sufficiently Prepared
70-89% Chance of Level II
50-69% Chance of Level II
Less than 50% Chance of
Meeting Level II on STAAR
217
207
199
192
184
195
Performance Levels
188
184
Level II
Sufficiently prepared for the next grade
172
167
Level III
Well prepared for the next grade
163
KG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9*
10*
11*
Current Phase-In Plan 3
Phase In 2
2016 - 2018
Scale Score: 1388
26/46 correct
57%
Phase In 1
2012-2015
Scale Score: 1392
24/46 correct* Based on Bridge study
TAKS Proficiency 52%
rd
Grade Math
Phase In 3
2019 - 2021
Scale Score: 1444
31/46 correct
67%
Recommended
Standard
2022 and beyond
Scale Score: 1486
34/46 correct
74%
Current Phase-In Plan 3
rd
Grade Math
Gradual STAAR Standard Plan
Phase In 2
2016 - 2018
Scale Score: 1388
26/46 correct
57%
Phase In 1
2012-2015
Scale Score: 1392
24/46 correct* Based on Bridge study
TAKS Proficiency 52%
Phase In 3
2019 - 2021
Scale Score: 1444
31/46 correct
67%
Recommended
Standard
2022 and beyond
Scale Score: 1486
34/46 correct
74%
Math Probability Range
Confirmation of Ranges
Reading
MAP
Range
KG Fall
Standard STAAR
Less than
50% Pink
Accommodated STAAR
All Versions
Total
Met
Met Pct
Total
Met
Met Pct
Total
Met
Met Pct
226
131
58%
58
10
17%
284
141
50%
Math
MAP
Range
KG
Fall
Less
than
50% Pink
Standard STAAR
Total
285
Met
193
Met
Pct
68%
Accommodated STAAR
Linguistically
Accommodated STAAR
Total
Total
93
Met
15
Met
Pct
16%
56
Met
16
Met
Pct
29%
All Versions
Total
434
Met
Met
Pct
224
52%
Confirmation of Ranges
Reading
All Versions
MAP Range KG Fall
Total
Met
S
Met Pct
Total
A
Met
Met Pct
Total
Met
Met Pct
Less than 50% - Pink
284
141
50%
226
131
58%
58
10
17%
50-69% - Orange
110
74
67%
97
72
74%
13
2
15%
70-89% - Yellow
341
246
72%
291
235
81%
50
11
22%
90% or higher - Green
952
867
91%
901
843
94%
51
24
47%
70% chance L3 - Gray
853
844
99%
843
839
100%
10
5
50%
Not Enrolled in KG
1257
1004
80%
1183
983
83%
74
21
28%
All Grade 3 Students
3797
3176
84%
3541
3103
88%
256
73
29%
Math
All Versions
MAP Range KG Fall
Total
Met
STAAR
Met Pct
Total
Met
STAAR-A
Met Pct
Total
Met
STAAR-L
Met Pct
Total
Met
Met Pct
Less than 50% - Pink
434
224
52%
285
193
68%
93
15
16%
56
16
29%
50-69% - Orange
319
238
75%
280
220
79%
24
7
29%
15
11
73%
70-89% - Yellow
279
232
83%
249
214
86%
20
11
55%
10
7
70%
90% or higher - Green
938
875
93%
901
857
95%
27
10
37%
10
8
80%
70% chance L3 - Gray
611
608
100%
607
604
100%
4
4
100%
0
0
0%
Not Enrolled in KG
1261
978
78%
1090
903
83%
69
13
19%
102
62
61%
All Grade 3 Students
3842
3155
82%
3412
2991
88%
237
60
25%
193
104
54%
Student Needs Analysis
For any student that may be in danger of being at-risk for not meeting state standards, analyze all of the following data,
as well as other relevant information, in order to make instructional decisions.
MAP Historical
Record
Classroom Unit
Assessments
STAAR Historical Record
TPRI/Tejas Lee/TELPAS
(results over time)
(results over time)
(summative/formative)
Consistent pattern of at-risk scores
(for example, less than 50% probability of success based on MAP, Level I performance on STAAR)
Identify areas of weakness
(strands, reporting categories) Narrow weakness with Unit Assessments
What is the preponderance of evidence?
• At-risk score is a one time event
• Unit assessments show mastery
(independent work)
• Progress in both MAP and STAAR
• At-risk scores evident historically or
longitudinally
• Student is in Quintile 4 or 5 but growing
• One or two areas of weakness evident
• Areas of weakness confirmed by unit
assessments (independent work)
• At-risk scores evident historically or
longitudinally
• Student is in Quintile 4 or 5 and not growing
• Many areas of weakness evident
• Areas of weakness confirmed by unit
assessments (independent work)
• Pattern of growth does not accelerate
Identify how the child learns best (analyze CogAT results)
TIER I - Regular Classroom
Instruction
TIER II or III- Address the
student's specific areas of
weakness
TIER II or III- Address the student's
broad needs in multiple areas of
weakness
Looking at All the Data
MAP Data
TPRI Data
• Graphophonemic Knowledge
• Overall Reading RIT – 132
SD
• Lowest Strand Foundational
– SCR 1 Letter Sound- 0
Skills-120
– GK 1 Letter Name ID - 6
• Ready to learn– Matching a letter to the
beginning sound of a given
picture
– Recognizes a letter that
makes a given initial sound
– Identifies upper and
lowercase letters
– GK 2 Letter to Sound Linking- 0
Looking at All the Data
MAP Data
TPRI Data
• Graphophonemic
• Overall Reading RIT – 132
Knowledge SD
• Lowest Strand Foundational
– SCR 1 Letter Sound- 6
Skills-120
– GK 1 Letter Name ID - 25
• Ready to learn– Matching a letter to the
beginning sound of a given
picture
– Recognizes a letter that
makes a given initial sound
– Identifies upper and
lowercase letters
– GK 2 Letter to Sound Linking10
Class by RIT or Class View
Goal Strand
Foundational
Skills
111-120
Noah (132)
121-130
131-140
141-150
151-160
161-170
Natalie (150)
Tyler (154)
Comprehension
Noah (132)
Vocabulary
Noah (132)
Writing and
Language
Noah (132)
Tyler (154)
Natalie (150)
Natalie (150)
Tyler (154)
Natalie (150)
Tyler (154)
Foundational Skills 111-120
Growth vs. Acceleration
Acceleration
Math Example
Looking at All the Data
• Overall Math MAP
(217)
– Numerical
Representations 210
– Computations and
Algebraic Relationships
212
– Geometry and
Measurement 222
– Data Analysis and
Monetary Transactions
219
• Have taught most of
Numerical
Representations and
all of Computations
and Algebraic
Relationships.
• Unit 1 test 73%
• Unit 2 test 68%
• Unit 3 test 78%
Class by RIT or Class View
Goal
181-190
191-200
201-210
211-220
221-230
Pyun, M (218)
Pavlis, M (193) Plunkett, M
Ramki, M (206)
Pineda, M (205) (213)
Rankin, M (212)
Pochinka, M
Potluri, M (206) Royer, P (214)
(192)
Trevino, S (198) Sanders, R (208)
Ratliff, N (208) Rao, N (217)
Stanley, S (214)
Numerical
Representations
Ramji, M
(228)
Pavlis, M (193)
Pineda, M (205)
Pochinka, M
Potluri, M (206)
(192)
Royer, P (214)
Ramki, M
Rankin, M (212) Stanley, S (214) Plunkett, M (213) Ramji, M (228)
Computations & (206)
Sanders, R (208) Trevino, S (198) Pyun, M (218)
Relationships
Rao, N (217)
Ratliff, N (208)
Pavlis, M (193)
Pineda, M (205) Plunkett, M (213)
Pochinka, M
Potluri, M (206) Pyun, M (218)
Trevino, S
(192)
Ratliff, N (208) Rankin, M (212)
Geometry &
(198)
Ramki, M (206) Sanders, R
Royer, P (214)
Measurement
(208)
Stanley, S (214)
Rao, N (217)
Pochinka, M
(192)
Data Analysis
Plunkett, M (213)
Potluri, M (206)
Ratliff, N (208)
Royer, P (214)
Pavlis, M (193)
Sanders, R (208)
Trevino, S (198) Pineda, M (205 Stanley, S (214)
231-240
Pyun, M (218)
Ramji, M (228)
Ramki, M (206)
Rankin, M (212)
Rao, N (217)
Ramji, M
(228)
Computations and Algebraic Relationships
Grade 5 201-210
TEKS to Target for Nico:
5.3E solve for products of decimals to the hundredths,
including situations involving money, using strategies
based on place-value understandings, properties of
operations, and the relationship to the multiplication of
whole numbers.
• Multiplies a decimal by a whole number
• Multiplies a 2 or 3 digit number by multiples
of 10 or 100
• Multiplies a 3 digit number by a 2 digit
number with regrouping
Conclusion
• Compare MAP to other data sources to give
context to the results.
• We should use multiple data points to make
instructional decisions.
• Use the Learning Statements from the NWEA
Learning Continuum to narrow the focus and
target instruction as much as possible.
QUESTIONS?
Jennifer Ruth
Plano ISD
Jennifer.Ruth@pisd.edu
469-752-8022
“Teaching seems to require the sort
of skills one would need to pilot a
bus full of live chickens backwards,
with no brakes, down a rocky road
through the Andes while providing
colorful and informative
commentary on the scenery.”
Franklin Habit