Mysiak: Germantown MAP results show year-over-year gains; committee hears curriculum review status

Mysiak, the district presenter, told the Germantown School District Teaching and Learning Committee that districtwide spring MAP quadrant reports show increases in both student growth and achievement compared with the prior year. "So in 24–25, we have 55 percent of our students made the growth that MAP anticipated," he said, and "in 25–26, we had 69 percent of our students make the growth that Matt predicted." He added that achievement above the 50th percentile rose from about 63 percent in 24–25 to about 78 percent in 25–26.

Why it matters: the committee received the data as a system-level indicator used for instructional planning, principal–teacher conversations and multi-year curriculum review decisions. Mysiak explained the charts show both growth and achievement: horizontal position indicates overall achievement and vertical position indicates growth. He cautioned that growth measures vary by grade and prior performance and that cohort samples shift year to year (for example, a new cohort of first-graders replaces the prior year’s fifth-graders).

Mysiak described how teachers and principals use scatter plots at the student level to identify who needs targeted instruction and where programs are producing positive trends. He cited elementary math results as particularly strong, reporting that roughly 77 percent of elementary students met growth targets and about 84 percent were above the 50th percentile in math in the most recent year. "So there are some strong positive gains," he said.

The presenter also connected the MAP findings to the committee’s ongoing curriculum review work, explaining that phase 1 (teacher-led visioning) and phase 2 (selection and piloting) feed into decisions about instructional materials and pacing. He noted that pilot data can highlight gaps such as when students in the upper-right achievement quadrant show lower growth, prompting targeted instructional questions and possible curriculum or pacing adjustments.

The committee asked several procedural and technical questions about how the charts account for grade transfers and changing cohort samples. Mysiak said teachers can view individual student plots inside the district system and that staff can disaggregate results by grade or building for more granular analysis. A committee member noted the utility for parents, saying the MAP reports available to families let them track a single student’s growth.

The meeting packet and Mysiak’s comments identified next steps: use pilot results to inform curriculum reviews at K–5, 6–8 and 9–12 levels and continue to engage teacher teams and principals in phase-based reviews. The committee did not take a formal vote on the MAP report; the presentation served as an informational update and context for subsequent curriculum-related motions.