Use multiple evidence sources alongside benchmark scores when identifying students for intensive intervention¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The article recommends that schools and educators not rely solely on MAP Growth benchmark scores for intensive-intervention decisions. Because screening is a prediction subject to error, especially in early grades, the authors state it is "highly recommended for schools and educators to incorporate other factors in conjunction with student performance against the established benchmarks." Suggested factors include behavior screening, teacher inputs, core course completion or failure, school dropout, and GPA.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• An established benchmark cut score from a universal screening assessment as one input among several

Constraints¶

• The article notes no universal screener is free from error, with false positives and false negatives occurring more often in early grades

Target Learners¶

• Students in Grades K-8 being screened for learning difficulties

Target Learning Goals¶

• Accurate identification of students needing intensive intervention in reading and mathematics

Related Strategies¶

• Combine formative assessment information with MAP Growth scores for instructional decisions
• Educational leaders should weigh the demographic shift in tested students and other contextual data when planning student growth and recovery support
• Pair norm-referenced metrics with evidence of progress toward grade-level expectations in accountability decisions
• Schools and districts should choose screener benchmarks that match their goals and resources for defining and serving at-risk students
• Use multiple, diverse data sources selected to offer distinct yet complementary information
• Use predicted ARM scores solely to select personalized tutoring content in MAP Reading Fluency Coach, not for benchmarking or instructional decisions
• Use two-stage gated screening: an early reading screen followed by several weeks of progress monitoring before confirming at-risk status

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• He, W., & Meyer, P. (2021). MAP Growth universal screening benchmarks: Establishing MAP Growth as an effective universal screener. NWEA. https://www.nwea.org