How post-COVID norm shifts change the meaning of MAP Growth metrics for school accountability - White Paper - Dr. Ayesha K. Hashim

Oct 15, 2026

This white paper analyzes how the 2025 update to NWEA’s MAP Growth national norms changes the interpretation and use of norm-referenced achievement and growth metrics in school accountability. It explains how post-COVID shifts in achievement and growth patterns require recalibration of the national reference group and highlights the role of the enhanced itemselection algorithm (EISA). The paper details impacts on achievement percentiles, conditional growth percentiles, and projected proficiency across intervention screening, teacher evaluation and performance-based compensation, and charter authorization and accreditation, providing guidance to support fair and instructionally meaningful decisions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Screening students for intervention

Teacher evaluation and performance-based compensation

Charter school authorization and school accreditation

Conclusion

WHITE PAPER How post-COVID norm shifts change the meaning of MAP Growth metrics for school accountability Dr. Ayesha K. Hashim Table of contents 3 Introduction 5 Screening students for intervention 7 Teacher evaluation and performance-based compensation 9 Charter school authorization and school accreditation 11 Conclusion 12 Author Introduction This paper examines how the 2025 update to NWEA®’s MAP® Growth™ national norms changes the interpretation and use of key norm referenced metrics in school accountability contexts. We show how shifts in post COVID achievement and growth patterns and the introduction of NWEA’s enhanced itemselection algorithm (EISA), call for careful review of commonly used metrics such as achievement percentiles, conditional growth percentiles (CGPs), and projected proficiency. These changes have important implications for how educators, system leaders, and authorizers interpret school performance and make decisions. Every three to five years, NWEA updates its national norms to ensure MAP Growth continues to provide timely, relevant, and accurate information to its partner districts and states. The 2025 norms update was particularly consequential. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, national patterns of student achievement and growth have fallen substantially below prepandemic trends, requiring a recalibration of the national reference group against which student performance is interpreted. The updated norms reflect the realities of today’s classrooms where achievement patterns, student demographics, and instructional conditions have shifted in lasting ways, and incorporate key enhancements to MAP Growth. Most notably, the update aligns norms to the EISA, which strengthens alignment of MAP Growth to grade level content. This paper is written for state and district leaders, charter authorizers, accreditors, and school administrators who use MAP Growth data in accountability, evaluation, or improvement efforts. First, we illustrate how the 2025 norms have shifted reading and math achievement and growth patterns, and how these shifts affect commonly used MAP Growth metrics. We then examine the implications across three accountability contexts where norm referenced measures play a central role: 1. Screening and identification of students for intervention, 2. Teacher evaluation and performance based compensation, 3. Charter school authorization and school accreditation. Across each context, we highlight why revisiting how metrics are interpreted matters, where misinterpretation is most likely, and what leaders can do. By offering practical guidance on the use of norm referenced metrics under updated norms, this paper aims to support MAP Growth partners in making accurate, fair, and instructionally meaningful accountability decisions in a post COVID landscape. What’s new in the 2025 norms—and why it matters for interpreting results in accountability contexts. When norms change, the meaning of norm referenced (comparative) metrics changes as well. Measures such as achievement percentiles and conditional growth percentiles (CGPs), describe student and school performance relative to national peers. As those peers shift in what kinds of achievement and growth are “typical”, the same RIT score—or the same amount of growth—can yield different percentile rankings than in prior years. Table 1 summarizes what commonly used MAP Growth metrics tell us about student achievement. How post-COVID norm shifts change the meaning of MAP Growth metrics for school accountability | 3 Table 1. What MAP Growth metrics tell you Metric What it tells you | RIT score | Student test scores on the NWEA MAP Growth assessments, which range from 100 to 350 | | --- | --- | | RIT score gain | Student gains in RIT scores over time (e.g., fall to spring) | | Achievement percentile | Relative ranking of a student’s RIT score within a given term and grade compared to students in the same grade, s

FAQs

What is the main change in the 2025 MAP Growth norms update?

The paper explains that NWEA updated national norms in 2025, reflecting post-COVID shifts in student achievement and growth. This requires recalibrating the national reference group used to interpret norm-referenced metrics.

How can the same MAP Growth results translate differently after the norms change?

When national peers’ typical achievement and growth patterns shift, the same RIT score or RIT score gain can produce different achievement percentiles and conditional growth percentiles. The paper also notes changes in projected proficiency under the updated norms.

Where do the updated norms most affect accountability decisions?

The paper focuses on three contexts: screening and identification for intervention, teacher evaluation and performance-based compensation, and charter school authorization and school accreditation. In each context, it highlights how metric interpretation may be misapplied and what leaders can do.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Quinn Holloway