The Ghost Rubric: When Requirements Reference Tests That Don't Exist
Oak Park Elementary School District 97 switched assessment platforms sometime between 2023 and 2025.
Out with MAP and AimsWeb+. In with STAR.
It’s now November 2025—midway through the school year.
The district still hasn’t published updated acceleration rubrics showing how STAR assessments will be scored.
And the rubrics that are published? They reference tests the district stopped giving two years ago.
This isn’t just a documentation problem. It reveals something deeper about how the district handles acceleration, communicates with families, and manages basic operational competence.
The Requirements on Paper
If you visit Oak Park District 97’s website looking for information about math acceleration, you’ll find detailed rubrics. These rubrics list specific assessments your child needs to take:
For kindergarten acceleration (Section 1):
- NWEA MAP Growth (Fall test percentile)
- NWEA MAP Growth (Winter test percentile)
- AimsWeb+ assessment
- Report card grades
- Student voice survey
For first grade acceleration:
- AimsWeb+ Math Computation
- AimsWeb+ Early Numeracy
- Report card grades
- Other criteria
These rubrics are official documents. They show exactly what scores your child needs on exactly which tests to even be considered for acceleration.
There’s just one problem.
The tests don’t exist anymore.
The Tests That Vanished
In August 2025, Principal Hussain Ali sent an email to my family with this sentence buried in the middle:
“2nd Grade will only take the STAR assessment for Reading and Math. This tool replaces MAP and AIMSWeb Plus.”
Wait. What?
NWEA MAP Growth? The test that’s all over the kindergarten rubric with detailed percentile breakdowns (86-90th percentile = 1 point, 90-94th = 2 points, 95-99th = 3 points)?
Discontinued.
AimsWeb+? The test listed on both kindergarten and first grade rubrics as a core assessment component?
Also discontinued.
When? According to district communications, MAP was discontinued sometime around August 2023. AimsWeb+ followed in 2025.
What replaced them? STAR Assessments by Renaissance.
When were parents told? If you weren’t on email threads about other topics (like my family), you wouldn’t know.
The Timeline of Confusion
Let me walk you through what this looked like from a parent’s perspective:
Spring 2024 (Kindergarten): My daughter took the MAP test. It was part of her acceleration rubric. She scored in the 94th percentile on the Winter MAP and got 2 points for it.
Spring 2025 (First Grade): The rubric still listed MAP and AimsWeb+ as requirements. But the tests were being phased out or already gone.
August 2025: Principal Ali mentions in passing that STAR “replaces MAP and AIMSWeb Plus.”
September 2025: Acting Superintendent Patrick Robinson confirms in an email: “We are no longer using AimsWeb at the elementary level.”
October 2025: When I asked about assessment access for my partially-enrolled daughter, Principal Ali wrote: “With our district using a new assessment platform this year, our rubrics for acceleration will be updated by the District MTSS team.”
November 2025 (today): The published rubrics still reference MAP and AimsWeb+. No updated rubrics have been published.
What These Tests Actually Do
Before we get into the operational failures, it’s important to understand what MAP, AimsWeb+, and STAR actually are—and why this transition matters beyond just acceleration rubrics.
These aren’t tests you “study for.” They’re assessment tools used throughout the school year to:
AimsWeb+ (discontinued):
- Universal screening tool designed to identify at-risk students
- Part of Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) for early intervention
- Probes student performance to determine who needs additional support
- Primary purpose: Flag students struggling with grade-level content so they can receive timely intervention
NWEA MAP Growth (discontinued):
- Adaptive assessment measuring student growth over time
- Adjusts difficulty based on student responses
- Provides above-grade and below-grade measurement
- Primary purpose: Track academic progress and inform instruction
STAR Assessments (current):
- Renaissance platform replacing both MAP and AimsWeb+
- More aligned with MAP’s adaptive growth model
- Primary purpose: Similar to MAP—progress monitoring and instructional planning
The acceleration rubric is a secondary use of these tools. Their main purpose is broader: identifying students who need intervention, measuring academic growth, and informing instructional decisions across the entire student population.
And here’s the first major concern: AimsWeb+ was specifically designed to flag at-risk students for early intervention. STAR is more like MAP—focused on growth and progress monitoring.
So how is the district now identifying students who need intervention?
If you’ve replaced a screening tool designed to catch struggling students with a growth-monitoring tool that serves a different purpose, what happens to the students who would have been flagged by AimsWeb+ but won’t show up on STAR?
The district hasn’t publicly explained this.
The Questions Nobody Answered
But beyond the broader MTSS and intervention concerns, there’s a more specific operational failure: the district can’t tell families how acceleration will work under the new system.
If you’re a parent considering acceleration for Spring 2026, here’s what you don’t know:
1. What assessment will actually be used?
STAR assessments, presumably. But which specific STAR tests? What subjects? When are they administered?
2. What are the scoring thresholds for STAR?
The old rubrics said exactly what MAP percentiles were worth: 86-90th = 1 point, 90-94th = 2 points, etc.
What are the thresholds for STAR? Are they equally harsh? More lenient? We don’t know—there’s no published rubric.
3. Can parents use independent testing?
My daughter took the MAP test through the district. She scored 99th percentile in math. If MAP is discontinued, does that data still count? Can we get her independently tested on MAP and submit those scores?
Nobody’s told us.
4. What happens to kids with MAP data from prior years?
Some families might have MAP scores from when the district still administered it. Are those scores usable for future applications? Or are they now irrelevant because they’re not from the “current assessment platform”?
No guidance.
5. When will the new rubrics be published?
Principal Ali said in October 2025 that rubrics “will be updated by the District MTSS team.”
When? Before families apply for the 2026-2027 school year? After?
We’re in mid-November 2025. Still waiting.
The Operational Failure
Here’s what this means in practice:
A family wants to apply for their child’s acceleration in Spring 2026. They do what responsible parents do: they look up the district’s published acceleration requirements.
The rubric says: You need MAP scores. You need AimsWeb+ scores. Here are the percentile thresholds.
But those tests don’t exist anymore.
They check the district website for updated rubrics. Nothing.
They email the principal. Response: “Our rubrics for acceleration will be updated by the District MTSS team.”
When? No timeline given.
We’re midway through the 2025-2026 school year. Students are taking STAR assessments right now. And the district still hasn’t published guidance on how those assessments will be used to make acceleration decisions for next year.
This isn’t a documentation lag. It’s operational incompetence.
This Is Not an Isolated Issue
The MAP/AimsWeb discontinuation isn’t the only transparency problem with these rubrics. It’s part of a pattern.
No validation research. Illinois law requires acceleration practices to be “research-based” (105 ILCS 5/14A-32(a)(4)). I’ve asked three times for the research validating Oak Park’s rubric thresholds. The district’s response? “We do not have all of the detailed work readily available to provide.”
No stakeholder input. When I asked about how rubrics are developed, Principal Ali said they’re “updated by the District MTSS team.” Not with parent input. Not with community feedback. Behind closed doors.
No advance notice. The transition from MAP to STAR wasn’t announced publicly. It was mentioned in passing in individual emails to families who happened to ask the right questions.
No updated guidance. As of November 2025, months after the tests changed, the published rubrics still reference the old assessments.
The Equity Problem (Again)
I found out about the MAP/STAR transition because I was already deep in email correspondence about my daughter’s acceleration applications.
I knew to ask questions about assessments because I’d been through the process twice.
I had the time and knowledge to dig through emails and piece together what was happening. I know how to write emails citing specific requirements and following up persistently when I don’t get answers.
I’ve been doing this for years with Oak Park Village infrastructure—emailing Bill McKenna (Village Engineer) about bike lane obstructions, applying to serve on the Transportation Commission, challenging data in Vision Zero reports. I know how slow institutional change can be, and I have the resources to keep pushing.
Most parents don’t have that.
Most parents look at the district’s published rubrics and assume they’re current. They assume that if MAP is listed as a requirement, MAP is still being administered.
When they apply for acceleration, they’ll find out—too late—that the rubric they consulted was obsolete and the district has no updated guidance to offer.
What Should Happen
This isn’t complicated to fix:
1. Publish updated rubrics immediately.
If STAR has replaced MAP and AimsWeb+, update the rubrics to reflect that. Show exactly which STAR assessments will be used and what the scoring thresholds are.
2. Announce changes publicly.
When you change assessment platforms that affect acceleration criteria, don’t bury it in individual emails. Post it prominently on the district website. Send a notification to all families with children in relevant grades.
3. Provide transition guidance.
Explain how data from prior assessments (MAP, AimsWeb+) will be treated. Tell families whether independent testing is acceptable. Give clear timelines for when new rubrics will be available.
4. Remove obsolete rubrics.
Take down any acceleration materials that reference discontinued assessments. Replace them with accurate, current information.
None of this requires new funding. None of this requires board approval. This is basic communications: when you change requirements, tell people.
The Bigger Pattern
The ghost rubric problem isn’t just about MAP and AimsWeb+.
It’s about a system where:
- Requirements are published but not updated
- Changes happen behind the scenes without public announcement
- Parents find out by accident through individual emails
- Operational failures cascade: losing at-risk student screening capability while failing to update acceleration guidance
- The district can’t answer basic questions about its own requirements
It’s about a district that talks about “consistency, fairness, and reliability” in its acceleration process while referencing tests it stopped giving two years ago—and still hasn’t published updated rubrics midway through the current school year.
What I Want to Know
To Oak Park District 97 administrators:
How are you now identifying at-risk students? AimsWeb+ was specifically designed for universal screening to flag students needing intervention. STAR is more aligned with MAP (progress monitoring). What screening tool replaced AimsWeb+’s early intervention function?
Why are rubrics referencing discontinued assessments still published on district materials as of November 2025?
When will updated rubrics showing STAR requirements be publicly available?
Will families who have MAP data from prior years be able to use it in future applications?
What is the timeline for public notification when assessment platforms change?
Who is responsible for ensuring published acceleration materials are accurate and current?
These aren’t gotcha questions. These are basic operational questions that should have simple answers.
But as of today, November 14, 2025, I don’t have those answers.
And neither do the hundreds of other District 97 families trying to navigate a system where the requirements might be obsolete before you finish reading them.
For Parents
If you’re a parent in Oak Park District 97 (or any district):
- Don’t assume published rubrics are current
- Email the district directly to confirm which assessments are actually being used
- Ask for updated rubrics in writing
- Request clarity on whether independent testing is acceptable
- Save all correspondence
For other districts:
Check your own published acceleration materials. When did you last update them? Do they reference discontinued assessments? Are families getting accurate information?
Because the ghost rubric problem might not be unique to Oak Park.
Related Posts:
Next in series: Coming next week: The next chapter in this investigation.
This is part of an ongoing series documenting one family’s experience with gifted education acceleration in Oak Park Elementary School District 97. All facts are based on emails, rubric documents, and official communications obtained through public records requests and direct correspondence with district officials.
Names of school officials (principals, district administrators) are used as they are public officials performing official duties. Student and parent names are withheld to protect privacy.