Spring 2021-2022 MAP Results
Introduction
The results below are meant to be a general-reference resource for understanding trends in this spring’s MAP results. As with any data report, particularly one regarding student testing, the findings below should be interpreted with caution, and weighed against other pieces of evidence at school leaders’ disposal.
The spring test is the final result of achievement and growth across the year. The report below will summarize where students and schools ended up.
Key Findings
- Percentiles decreased by two points compared to this winter–35 for math and 41 for reading, but constitute a small improvement over Spring 2020-2021 results.
- Around 39-40% of students met their growth goals in math and reading, respectively. This is a decrease compared to winter, but an improvement over Spring 2020-2021.
How to Use This Report
This report is a static HTML file (i.e. it will not update automatically based on changing data) that can be navigated using the table of contents to the left (on a computer) or at the top (on a smartphone).
The majority of figures are paired with a table below them. In these tables, the order the data is sorted in can be changed by clicking on the header the user wishes to change.
Larger tables will only show a subset of information. The total number of rows will be shown right under, together with a drop-down menu to allow for more rows to show at once, and a page navigation that allows for moving from one set of rows to the next.
Certain tables can be downloaded. If this is the case, a “Download as CSV” button will be found below the table.
Downloaded tables will be semi-colon separated. This tutorial details how to split delimited text in Excel.
Network-Wide Results
Achievement
There was a small decrease in mean percentile from winter to spring.
How typical are these achievement results?
While this spring’s results are a decrease compared to winter, they are an improvement over Spring 2020-2021. Unfortunately, there is a gap between pre-pandemic and current results.
In addition, it should be noted that the results below reflect shifted percentiles for students who took the K-2 test due to scale maintenance NWEA completed in July 2020, which explains why 2018-2019 math achievement surpassed the 2026 goal.
Growth
NWEA projects growth goals for each student based on how similar students fared on average. This means that across the country, half of students will be below this average, and half of them will be above.
A student is considered to have met their growth goals if they meet or exceed those projections.
In spring 2022, around 39-40% of students who took a fall test met their growth goals. Around 96% of tested students had both fall and spring test data, and are therefore included in the growth dataset.
Totals might not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
How typical are these growth results?
Unfortunately, it is not possible to directly compare growth to other years because in July 2020, NWEA performed scale maintenance on K-2 tests. Therefore, the chart below only shows results for students who did not take K-2 tests in these years. The proportion of students meeting their growth goals for 2021-2022 across the network is different than the one shown above because it essentially represents the results for grades 3-8.
The proportion of students who met their goals is slightly lower compared to pre-pandemic years–however, it is a considerable improvement over spring 2020-2021, and only 3 percentage points away from the recent peak of 48% in 2018-2019.
Totals might not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
Results by Grade
Achievement
In reading, middle school grades have the highest achievement, with 8th grade at the 48th percentile. In math, grades K and 1 are strongest and exceed both the overall mean and the 2026 goal.
Growth
In spring 2022, around 39-40% of students who took a fall test met their growth goals across all grades.
In reading, grades 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 exceeded the overall threshold of 40%, 51% of 8th graders meeting their goals.
In math, grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 exceeded the overall threshold of 39%, with 58% of 8th graders meeting their goals.
Totals might not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
How typical are these growth results?
Due to scale maintenance NWEA performed on K-2 tests in July 2020, it is not possible to compare growth for students who took that test to the years before scale maintenance. The chart below will only focus on grade 3-8.
Overall, the proportion of students who met their goals is lower compared to pre-pandemic years.
However, 4th grade saw an improvement in the share of students who met their reading goals from Spring 2018-2019 to Spring 2021-2022, and 3rd grade reached the same proportion as in 2018-2019.
In math, grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 saw improvements in the share of students who met their math goals from Spring 2018-2019 to Spring 2021-2022. Eighth grade in particular saw an improvement of 12 percentage points compared to Spring 2018-2019.
Totals might not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
Results by School
Achievement
Holy Cross had the highest achievement in both reading and math, surpassing the 2026 goals for both subjects. St. Helena and St. Rose of Lima were second and third in math, with both schools meeting the 40th percentile goal for the subject.
Growth
Holy Cross had the highest proportion of students meeting their growth goals in both reading and math. St. Veronica was second in reading, and St. Helena was second in math.
Totals might not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
How typical are these growth results?
As with other year-to-year comparisons, growth here does not include students who took K-2 tests due to the scale maintenance NWEA performed in July 2020.
The following schools have a share of students meeting their reading growth goals that is equal to or exceeds pre-pandemic levels: DePaul, Holy Cross, St. Barnabas, St. Malachy, St. Rose of Lima, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Veronica.
The following schools have a share of students meeting their math growth goals that is equal to or exceeds pre-pandemic levels: DePaul, Holy Cross, St. Barnabas, St. Rose of Lima, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Veronica.
Totals might not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
Additional Analyses
Distributions
Achievement
Percentile
In the plot below, every point is a student’s percentile. Darker circles mean multiple circles are overlapped. The mean for the grade is marked with a dark green triangle. The means mirror the visualizations in the “Results by Grade -> Achievement” chart. Percentiles can only run from 1-100, so the distance between a score within range of NWEA’s norms and one that is anomalously high might not be fully captured, as it would simply top out at the 99th percentile.
This chart also has a violin plot overlay, which is another way of visualizing the shape of a set of data–wider sections means more students can be found within that percentile range.
RIT Score
MAP percentiles are based on where students are compared to their peers’ RIT (Rausch Unit) scores. An explanation of RIT Scores can be found in the “Terms Used” section.
In the plot below, every point is a student’s RIT score. Darker circles mean multiple circles are overlapped. The mean for the grade is marked with a dark green triangle.
This chart also has a violin plot overlay, which is another way of visualizing the shape of a set of data–wider sections means more students can be found within that range.
As the RIT scale is shared across grades, it is expected that higher grades will have higher RIT scores. NWEA’s norms are marked with a yellow diamond.
Growth
Conditional Growth Index
From the NWEA website, “The conditional growth index (CGI) is an indicator of how much individual student growth deviates from the student growth norms.” A CGI of 0 indicates that a student’s growth was in line with the norms.
In the plot below, every point is a student CGI value. Darker circles mean multiple circles are overlapped. The mean for the grade is marked with a dark green triangle.
This chart also has a violin plot overlay, which is another way of visualizing the shape of a set of data–wider sections means more students can be found within that range.
Observed Growth
In the plot below, every point is a student observed growth value (using the RIT scale). Darker circles mean multiple circles are overlapped. The mean for the grade is marked with a dark green triangle.
This chart also has a violin plot overlay, which is another way of visualizing the shape of a set of data–wider sections means more students can be found within that percentile range. NWEA’s norms are marked with a yellow diamond.
What is the relationship between achievement and growth?
In the plot below, the x-axis represents student growth, and the y-axis represents RIT score. The yellow diamond sign is the intersection of growth and achievement norms for each grade.
The colors depict whether or not a student met their growth goals.
For the lower grades, growth and achievement can be best described with an upwardly sloping diagonal line, showing that as their score increased, their growth increased as well. Upper grades spread out more, and the relationship between growth and achievement may be described with a vertical line, showing both that there was more variance in student outcomes, and that higher RIT scores didn’t necessarily come with higher growth.
Please note that extreme observed growth values have been omitted to focus in on where the majority of students could be found.
How did observed growth differ from projections?
Which students struggled to meet the projections, and by how much?
Below, a line is drawn for each student between their projected and observed growth–students who met or exceeded projections are drawn in light blue, while students who didn’t meet those projections are drawn in dark blue. The x-axis represents their RIT scores.
With that, a dividing line becomes clear across grades and subjects. For lower grades, particularly kindergarten and first grade in math, there is a diagonal line that slopes up and to the left, showing that more often than not, students with higher scores tended to have smaller growth projections. On the other hand, upper grades, particularly 8th grade in math, have a nearly vertical dividing line–meaning that students who had higher scores were about as likely had similar growth projections to students with lower scores.
Please note that extreme observed growth values have been omitted to focus in on where the majority of students could be found.
Test Operations
This spring, testing finalized on May 27th. A total of 3543 students were tested in either math or reading out of a possible 3616 active students in K-8.
The goal is for at least 95% of students to be tested in order to be able to draw conclusions at the school and network level.
- 96% (3485/3616) of students had a valid math test.
- 97% (3494/3616) had a valid reading test.