Norm shifts can change teacher evaluation CGP outcomes independently of instructional quality¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r1–r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q1 i? In reading, lower national growth among lower-achieving readers can raise teachers' CGPs even when absolute RIT gains are unchanged (e.g., a 3-point gain moving from the 19th to the 22nd CGP percentile). → Hashim 2026 q1 i? In math, higher growth expectations can lower CGPs for teachers of higher-performing classes despite consistent RIT gains. → Hashim 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Hashim 2026¶

Hashim, A. K. (2026). How post-COVID norm shifts change the meaning of MAP Growth metrics for school accountability. NWEA White Paper. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/how-post%e2%80%91covid-norm-shifts-change-the-meaning-of-map-growth-metrics-for-school-accountability/

q1 · i? · theoretical · r2

The paper's illustrative reading example in the teacher-evaluation section: the same sixth-grade RIT gain corresponds to a CGP of the 19th percentile under 2020 norms and the 22nd under 2025 norms. Illustrative, no effect size printed.

"a sixth-grade student with a fall RIT score of 200 who grows 3 points by spring would place at the 19th percentile for CGP under 2020 norms, but under the 2025 norms, that same RIT score gain corresponds to the 22nd percentile."

Hashim 2026 (2)¶

Hashim, A. K. (2026). How post-COVID norm shifts change the meaning of MAP Growth metrics for school accountability. NWEA White Paper. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/how-post%e2%80%91covid-norm-shifts-change-the-meaning-of-map-growth-metrics-for-school-accountability/

q1 · i? · theoretical · r1

The paper's illustrative math example: the same 8-point gain yields a CGP of the 50th percentile under 2020 norms versus the 34th under 2025 norms, which the paper attributes to higher national growth expectations.

"a sixth-grade student with a fall RIT score of 240 who grows 8 points by spring would place at the 50th percentile under the prior, 2020 norms. But under the 2025 norms, the same RIT score gain only corresponds to a CGP of the 34th percentile."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Under the 2025 norms, higher math growth expectations lower conditional growth percentiles for higher-growth students — related
• Under the 2025 MAP Growth norms, the same reading RIT score can rank higher in achievement percentile due to national declines in achievement — related
• Norm shifts can raise achievement percentiles for schools serving struggling students even when RIT gains and projected proficiency do not improve — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Static percentile screening cut points carried across norm sets can under-identify students who remain below grade level — related
• The published norms allow normative interpretation of both status and fall-to-spring growth, e.g., an Algebra 1 student at the 55th fall percentile has an expected gain of 8 RIT with growth SD of 9, and an 11-RIT gain places the student at the 62nd growth percentile. — related
• Post-COVID norm shifts and NWEA's enhanced item selection algorithm change the interpretation of MAP Growth metrics for school accountability — a broader claim this one bears on
• The 2020 norms report states the MAP Growth scale remains stable while status patterns shifted relative to the 2015 norms — related
• Average growth maintains rather than improves a student's achievement percentile; growth must exceed average for a student to gain ground — related
• After eight months of eSpark usage in first-grade ELA classrooms, NWEA reading percentile scores showed no pattern of increasing achievement — related