Schools, parents differ on MAP scores' value

"Dear parents and guardians," the letter begins, "this past spring, your child participated in the Missouri Assessment Program."

Hmm, MAP. Sounds familiar. But why should I care about this? What does it tell me about my child?

In the next two weeks, Cape Girardeau parents will receive that very letter from their school district accompanied by their child's scores on the 2004 MAP communication arts, math, science and social studies tests.

And likely, many parents will have those same thoughts as they try to determine the meaning of the various numbers and terms included in the scores.

The Missouri Assessment Program is just one of around 25 different assessments the Cape Girardeau School District administers throughout the school year. It's the only one, however, that has direct repercussions for the school district.

"I hate to say it, but MAP drives everything we do," said Rhonda Dunham, principal at Cape Girardeau's Franklin Elementary. "It makes us accountable, but that's not a bad thing."

But some parents say the emphasis placed on MAP scores can outweigh other factors used to measure achievement.

"If you judge just by those scores, it's not fair. Kids get nervous on tests," said April Bryant, a Cape Girardeau parent of elementary and middle school students. "You have to judge based on the everyday work."

The MAP has been administered every spring in Missouri since 1997, but its significance has been greatly magnified since the implementation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act in 2002.

Missouri schools must now achieve certain annual proficiency goals, labeled as adequate yearly progress, on the communication arts and math MAP tests. This year, schools were required to have 20.4 percent of students score proficient or higher in communication arts and 10.3 percent score proficient or higher in math in order to meet federal progress goals.

Failing to make those proficiency goals means penalties, such as students being able to choose to attend a different school with a better proficiency score. The penalties grow more severe each year the goals are not met, though they only apply in schools that receive federal Title I funding.

When the 2004 scores were released to schools Aug. 16, local educators say they looked first not at the overall scores to see how well they did, but for a "met" or "not met" next to adequate yearly progress.

"That has to be our No. 1 priority because it affects the whole community," said Pat Fanger, curriculum director in Cape Girardeau.

In Cape Girardeau, Scott City and Jackson, all Title I schools made the goals for this year, thus avoiding any penalties. School officials will now turn their attention to analyzing this year's scores and educating parents about the importance of these tests.

Parents, meanwhile, may be somewhat lost in the maze of data that make up adequate yearly progress and MAP when the district sends home individual scores Sept. 9.

"We'd like to think that parents really know about MAP and look at the scores, but I don't know that they do," said Dunham "This is what the government says we have to do, and that's what we're going to do. But it's a once-a-year test and the scores don't come out until the next year, so students have already forgotten about it."

In the explanation letter that will accompany the students' scores, district officials stress that MAP scores are only one indicator of academic progress.

Some schools, such as Alma Schrader Elementary, are holding special meetings with parents to explain what the scores mean. Despite the growing significance placed on the MAP tests, parents say what matters to them is still what happens in the classroom, not on a test.

"I pay attention to the daily homework, the books they read," said Jason Copeland, a parent at Franklin Elementary. "I don't look at these scores as a way to judge how my student is doing, but per the whole school, it helps me determine how well the faculty is doing their job."

cclark@semissourian.com

335-6611, ext. 128