Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District presents fall MAP benchmark review, emphasizes attainment and MTSS supports
Summary
District staff reviewed fall MAP benchmarking across elementary, middle and high school, reported cohort and grade-level comparisons using 2025 norms, and said the district will focus on attainment (proficiency) and MTSS supports to move students from average into higher proficiency bands.
A district staff member presented Aurora East USD 131's fall MAP benchmarking results to the Curriculum Committee on Oct. 17, 2025, reviewing quintile distributions, cohort comparisons and implications for spring state assessments.
The presenter explained that MAP scores were grouped into five performance quintiles (low, low average, average, high average and high) and that students in the high-average and high quintiles are most likely to reach proficiency on spring state assessments if they achieve expected growth under the 2025 norms. The presenter noted the district is using the 2025 norms for all comparisons this year; last year used prior norms.
District-level highlights included stronger fall distributions in high school compared with last year and pockets of cohort improvement in elementary dual-language cohorts, notably fifth grade, where the presenter said the group is outperforming its prior-year cohort in both English and Spanish measures. The presenter cautioned that Spanish MAP comparisons are limited because the Spanish MAP administration is not nationally normed and there is no state Spanish-language IAR to compare against.
The presenter emphasized a district strategy shift toward attainment: focusing not only on growth but on getting more students to proficiency (attainment), while continuing to support students in the low tiers. A particular emphasis is to accelerate students in the "average" band who are near the high-average threshold; moving that middle group up would increase proficiency rates without the same resource intensity required for tiered interventions. The presenter linked this strategy to MTSS academic supports and said buildings are implementing tiered interventions and data-monitoring cycles.
Committee members suggested receiving a district-level presentation on the MTSS process so board members could better understand how tier 2 and tier 3 supports are being deployed; district staff agreed to bring that information forward.
No formal committee action (vote or motion) regarding the MAP results was recorded in the transcript.
