map use by talented and gifted programs

From: Dave Swanson [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:30 AMTo: Vaughan, Robert CCc: de Barros, JessicaSubject: RE: MAP use by Talented and Gifted Programs

Robert: I confirmed that the “TRUE”/”FALSE” values indicated on the CDF do not indicate an aborted test. In fact, tests invalidated due to a test duration being too short and proctor terminated tests do not appear on the CDF. Tests will not be aborted/invalidated due a student taking an exceedingly long time to complete the test as there is no “maximum time”. Nor will tests be invalidated due to the number of items shown. All of our tests follow a similar pattern in regards to the number of items shown, regardless of a student’s performance.

Invalidated tests do appear on the Teacher Report, Grade Report and Class Report with the appropriate error code (Duration Too Short, Proctor Terminated, etc). Any more detailed than that would require either a custom report for a large number of students, or a call in to Tech Support regarding a specific student. Dave

From: Vaughan, Robert C [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 5:05 PMTo: Dave SwansonSubject: RE: MAP use by Talented and Gifted Programs

I think you’ve answered that question, Dave. I am looking at the comprehensive file. Are there any conventions for identifying possibly aborted test starts based on minutes trying or items attempted?

Robert C. Vaughan, Ph.D.Manager, Advanced LearningSeattle Public Schools206-252-0130

From: Dave Swanson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 4:28 PMTo: Vaughan, Robert CSubject: RE: MAP use by Talented and Gifted Programs

Robert: I assume you are talking about the comprehensive data file as opposed to one of our prebuilt reports? I believe True indicates which score was used in calculating growth. If there were two scores for a student in the same testing window (if they tested twice), the true score would be the one with the lowest error of measure.

If you have a screen shot or can give a little more context I’ll have one of our researchers reply. Thanks, Dave

From: Vaughan, Robert C [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:21 PMTo: Dave SwansonSubject: RE: MAP use by Talented and Gifted Programs

David:

Thanks for the information. Maybe we will someday become the district you can point to that is making ground-breaking use of MAP data to evaluate progress among gifted students? I have googled about and found little informative on the national google-accessible scene.

In the meanwhile, I am beginning to work with the data set generated from MAP testing in reading and math in Seattle. One of the data elements is “growth measure YN”. Is there a document on a website somewhere that explains why the same students in our data file might have data records on the reading test with both “false” and “true” for the “growth measure YN?” True or False doesn’t seem to be associated with test duration.

Appreciate your help to point me in the right direction,


From: Dave Swanson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 8:54 AMTo: Vaughan, Robert CCc: de Barros, JessicaSubject: RE: MAP use by Talented and Gifted Programs

Robert: Thanks for your message and inquiry…Gage is still here so I will pass along your hello. You should come down to our Partner conference this summer and can help him present his RIT 101 and RIT 201 sessions ;-)

To address your question, NWEA hasn’t systematically captured information about TAG or GATE programs where MAP is in use. From what I’ve heard anecdotally, the elementaries and middle schools like the fact that they have actionable data for students who are performing above grade level expectation, using Descartes to inform enrichment activities or in considering appropriate scaffolding for students who are ready for more challenging Math and Reading skills.

I’ve heard as well from high school programs that MAP provides a valid test and data point in a comprehensive assessment strategy, but in candor there have been requests for higher level items that would give even more information on those students. NWEA has this on the radar screen and I can keep you in the loop on how this initiative proceeds over the next year or two. The most recent initiative involving our scale was to extend it downward to the Primary Grades, since there can be as many as four or five “grade level” differences in Kindergarten and First grade classes where early intervention is key for outliers on both sides of the curve.

It would be good to capture your long range vision and input on things you would like to see in future iterations of MAP as our Development team is hard at work on making this adaptive tool as kid-centric, teacher friendly and extensible as possible to help schools work smarter, not harder. I hope the candid

response helps here and if you have specific things you would like me to relay to our development team that will help you in reaching your program goals over time, I’d like to learn more. Dave

From: Vaughan, Robert C [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 3:21 PMTo: Dave SwansonCc: de Barros, JessicaSubject: MAP use by Talented and Gifted Programs

Dear Mr. Swanson,As a former large scale achievement test coordinator for this district who knew Gage Kingsbury when he and his colleagues in Portland SD were fooling around with computer-adapting the Portland Area Levels Tests, I have lobbied hard to get MAP to Seattle to help in the development and monitoring of our programs for advanced learners (talented and gifted). Now that they are here, I need to quickly put together a case for MAP’s utility in both identification and monitoring of students for our advanced programs. I see enormous value in a very high ceiling test that affords a thoughtful consideration of academic growth among a population that tends to heavily top out on standard achievement tests. I also am intrigued to consider the possibility of comparisons within your testing group among populations of students historically under-identified for opportunities in TAG programs.

Can you please provide me with contact information for school districts comparable to Seattle that have been successfully using MAP as part of their portfolio of assessments to identify and monitor students for gifted programs?

I’ve also heard tell that MAP representatives have made presentations at meetings of the National Association for Gifted Children regarding use of MAP. I would appreciate any information you or your colleagues have put together that makes the case for why MAP should be such a valuable part of one’s assessment portfolio to identify and monitor progress by TAG students.

I hope to hear from you at your earliest opportunity, as I am going to have to make a case to our superintendent and chief academic officer next week.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Robert C. Vaughan, Ph.D.Manager, Advanced LearningSeattle Public Schools206-252-0130, Cell: 206-718-6726

From: de Barros, Jessica Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:20 PMTo: Vaughan, Robert CCc: Bernatek, Bradley T; 'Dave Swanson'Subject: RE: MAP consultant

Bob,

You can contact Dave Swanson, our NWEA rep, copied here.

Jessica

From: Vaughan, Robert C Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:22 AMTo: de Barros, JessicaCc: Bernatek, Bradley TSubject: MAP consultant

Hi Jessica,Brad suggested you would be the one to tell me who to contact at NWEA MAP to inquire about other districts comparable to Seattle using MAP for their gifted student program monitoring, identification, etc. I’d appreciate any contact information you can provide today.Thanks,Bob


map use by talented and gifted programs

Documents