Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anchorage board hears technical presentation on MAP Growth results; administration contrasts MAP with NAEP and AK STAR
Summary
District staff presented interim MAP Growth proficiency and growth targets for grades 3–8 and explained differences between MAP Growth, NAEP and AK STAR assessments. The board was asked to review disaggregated results in two weeks when content experts will present curriculum and strategies.
Get email alerts on the Student Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District staff gave the board an overview of MAP Growth interim goals and winter snapshots for math proficiency and growth in grades 3–8.
The superintendent and technical staff explained that the district’s goal for grades 3–5 is to increase the share of students at or above the MAP benchmark to 65 percent (up from a baseline cited in the materials) by spring 2028, and that the spring target this year was 55.3 percent with a winter snapshot showing 53.8 percent. For grades 6–8 the spring target was 55.9 percent with a winter snapshot at 54.5 percent. Staff emphasized that the MAP Growth assessment provides three snapshots each year (fall, winter, spring) and can be used to track within‑year growth for every tested student.
Assessment context: board members asked how MAP Growth relates to other measures such as NAEP and the AK STAR test. The administration cautioned that NAEP is a national sample assessment with a different purpose and limited scope and that it is not directly comparable to MAP Growth, which is aligned to local instruction and provides more frequent growth measures. One board member noted prior district discussions referencing AK STAR results for prior cohorts; technical staff confirmed AK STAR is the state summative assessment tied to annual accountability and that the MAP Growth monitoring conversation complements, rather than replaces, those measures.
Next steps: staff said content experts will present curriculum and instructional strategies, multi‑tiered systems of support and direct‑instruction plans in a follow‑up session in two weeks; the board was asked to review disaggregated reports by grade, race/ethnicity and special populations ahead of that discussion.
Ending: the board agreed to return to goal monitoring and strategy in two weeks with subject‑matter experts to discuss interventions and implementation.

