NWEA Spark Community

At my school we stopped testing the kindergarteners in the winter--those scores were meaningless--and we also scrapped the winter administration of the science assessment under the belief that any real variance in scores was probably more due to circumstance than intentionality.

I wanted to respond to pezzeb about the secondary schools and testing cycles. By secondary testing did you mean middle school or high school? Our high schools take the college required ACT test in early March which I believe may be a national date. So I get why they would want to eliminate one MAP testing cycle if you are also setting up for the ACT and perhaps you can coordinate that March test for Juniors with the other students who may be testing with MAPs. Secondary testing is a different game because students may have 6 teachers and also change at semesters. It only makes sense to first ask who is looking at the data and for what reason before assigning testing dates. If the data is being used to place students in classes, then test before the students are scheduled or near the end of a semester to help with interventions and future placements. Students, too, want to know why they are being tested and if the relevance is class placement and remediation (skill assistance), then they may be more motivated for their own results!

I have been having similar conversations with my administrative team. The elementary folks want to test 3 times but the secondary only wants to test 2. The problem comes in because the spring testing for elementary is preferred in late April or early May; however, the secondary wants their "2nd" cycle to happen in early March. Do I have to set up 4 testing cycles? Any advice would be much appreciated.

We also test three times per year. We use the data for the fall as our starting point. From there, we examine the winter data as a glimpse into our yearly progress thus far. Finally, we finish with the spring data to find what our total progress really was. Personally, lack of winter data does not allow me to have an idea of our true progress. With that data, I am able to make mid-course changes which I couldn't otherwise.

A true "screener" is administered 3 times a year. Therefore, when looking at RtI guidelines and potential special education referrals, having the appropriate frequency for screening data would be beneficial.

We test three times a year and find the December data to be the most helpful. It is measuring the progress of a teacher's current students while also providing information that teacher can use to guide instructional decisions for second semester. We enjoy the opportunity to see if program and instructional decisions made throughout the fall are working. We cut our December testing down to reading and math only in an effort to balance the need for the data with the need to keep testing to a minimum. If I had to the ability to cut out a testing window in our school, it would be the fall testing. I'd use the spring results for returning students and then only test new students in the fall.