This is Part 4 of “The Measurement Gap,” a series examining NWEA’s MAP testing and RIT scores—how they work, why teachers don’t trust them, and how they shape acceleration decisions in Oak Park District 97.

The previous parts of this series examined MAP testing in general: its troubled history, its innovative design, and the legitimate concerns that drive skepticism.

Now we get specific: How does Oak Park District 97 actually use these assessments?

The Assessment Landscape

District 97 doesn’t rely on a single test. Their “balanced assessment system” includes:

Benchmark Assessments (administered 3x/year):

  • MAP (NWEA): Computer-adaptive test for grades 2-8 measuring reading, math, and language usage
  • STAR (Renaissance): Used specifically for the “Access to Algebra” acceleration pathway
  • AimsWeb+: Universal screening tool

Classroom Assessments:

  • Daily/weekly checks, exit tickets, quizzes, observations
  • Unit and monthly common assessments

Summative Assessments:

  • Illinois Assessment of Readiness (IAR)
  • Illinois Science Assessment (ISA)
  • ACCESS for English Language Learners

The district’s stated philosophy: “A single style of assessment or a single point in time measure is insufficient to truly gauge the depth and breadth of student understanding.”

On its face, this sounds reasonable. In practice, it means piling on barriers.

The Rubric Weighting

On the elementary math acceleration rubric, assessments are weighted as follows:

ComponentMaximum Points
MAP Math (Winter)7 points
AimsWeb+ (Percentile)5 points
Report Card (Math)2 points
Other measures~32 points
Total46 points
Threshold to qualify36 points (78%)

MAP carries the highest single-component weight: 7 out of 46 possible points.

What this means:

  • A perfect MAP score (99th percentile) earns the maximum 7 points—but that’s only 15% of the total needed
  • A student must score well on everything else to qualify
  • The rubric’s structure guarantees that no single measure—even exceptional performance—is sufficient

My daughter scored in the 99th percentile on MAP Math. She received all 7 points.

She scored 63% overall. She needed 78% to qualify.

The Assessment Paradox

Here’s what’s strange about the rubric design:

If the district trusted MAP: A 99th percentile score—performing at a level most students don’t reach until years later—would carry decisive weight.

If the district distrusted MAP: Why give it the highest weighting of any component?

The answer is neither. The district is hedging—requiring multiple measures but trusting none of them individually. The practical effect is that each measure becomes an additional hurdle rather than confirming evidence.

Consider: My daughter scored 99th percentile on MAP (adaptive, designed to measure above-grade-level performance) but 92nd percentile on AimsWeb (a screening tool designed to identify struggling students, not assess acceleration readiness).

Same student. Both measuring math. The MAP score earned 7 points. The AimsWeb score earned 0 points.

The district’s response to this discrepancy wasn’t to question whether AimsWeb belongs on an acceleration rubric. It was to count both scores as independent barriers.

The 2017 Shift

The current system didn’t emerge from nowhere. It’s the product of deliberate policy changes.

In June 2017, the Wednesday Journal reported that the district’s Gifted, Talented and Differentiation (GTD) program had significant demographic disparities:

  • Black students: 19% of district enrollment, but only 3% of GTD
  • White students: 55% of enrollment, but 66% of GTD

Dr. Amy Warke, then Chief Academic Officer, stated the goal clearly:

“The demographics of the GTD programming and our student population should match. That’s why that ad hoc committee is really important.”

The solution, implemented under Superintendent Carol Kelley, was structural:

“Third-graders would no longer skip math grades but learn at accelerated pace.”

Translation: Instead of allowing high-performing third graders to take fourth-grade math, the district eliminated grade-skipping entirely at that level. Everyone stays in their grade. “Acceleration” became differentiation within the classroom rather than placement in advanced coursework.

As I documented in The Leveling Down, the E3 Group’s analysis of the district’s own data showed the results: GTD students’ scores declined, while non-GTD students’ scores stayed the same. Nobody improved.

The Official Philosophy

The district’s acceleration policy documents are explicit about their approach:

“Test scores alone do not meet the standards of a determination.”

And:

“A student may score at the 90th percentile or above on aptitude and achievement tests but not have data that supports school readiness. Every student with a score above 90th percentile may not benefit from single-subject or whole-grade acceleration.”

This sounds prudent. Testing has limitations. Multiple measures are better than single measures. Some high-scorers might struggle when accelerated.

But there’s a sleight of hand here.

The policy warns against relying only on test scores. Fair enough. But the rubric doesn’t supplement test scores with better measures of acceleration readiness. It supplements them with:

  • Report card grades (which measure performance on grade-level work, not readiness for above-grade work)
  • AimsWeb scores (a screening tool that measures fluency, not conceptual understanding)
  • Teacher recommendations (which may reflect classroom behavior as much as mathematical ability)

The district isn’t saying “test scores aren’t enough—we need to assess reasoning, problem-solving, and learning speed.” They’re saying “test scores aren’t enough—here are more barriers.”

The STAR Question

The district also uses Renaissance STAR assessments, but specifically for the “Access to Algebra” program—an alternate pathway for students in grades 5-7 to accelerate into advanced math.

Notably, this program excludes students who were already accelerated in elementary school—primarily those who skipped math in earlier grades.

A December 2024 Wednesday Journal article noted that the district has “significantly cut back advanced math offerings.” Brooks and Julian middle schools each had only three 10th-grade math classes, down from ten each.

The system that replaced grade-skipping has produced fewer accelerated students and fewer advanced course offerings.

What About Outcomes?

Here’s what the district doesn’t track—or at least doesn’t publish:

  • Acceleration success rates: What percentage of accelerated students succeed? Struggle? Regret the decision?
  • Correlation between rubric scores and outcomes: Do students who score 80% on the rubric perform better than those who score 75%?
  • False negatives: How many students denied acceleration would have succeeded?

Without this data, we have no way to know if the rubric actually identifies ready students or simply creates barriers. We know it denies most applicants—that’s by design. We don’t know if the students it denies would have thrived.

The district requires “research-based” acceleration practices under Illinois law. When asked for the research supporting their rubric thresholds, they admitted they couldn’t provide it.

The Trust Deficit

Teachers and administrators clearly distrust test scores for acceleration decisions. Some of that distrust is warranted—MAP has real limitations, especially for high achievers.

But the response isn’t to use better measures. It’s to use more measures, piling on barriers regardless of whether they assess what matters.

A 99th percentile MAP score means a first grader is performing at a level typical of fourth or fifth graders. That’s not a diagnostic. It’s not a guarantee of success. But it’s strong evidence that the student needs more challenge than first-grade math provides.

The district’s response: Not good enough. Show us your report card. Show us your AimsWeb score. Show us your teacher thinks you’re exceptional.

Meet all the barriers? Then maybe.

Next in the series: The Measurement Gap — Why the gap between what we measure and what we should measure leaves students caught in the middle.

Sources:

This is part of an ongoing series documenting one family’s experience with gifted education acceleration in Oak Park Elementary School District 97.