What Do MAP Scores Tell Us About College Attendance and Performance? Presentation to ShowMe ACT Columbia, MO March 18,

1. What Do MAP Scores Tell Us About College Attendance and Performance? Presentation to ShowMe ACTColumbia, MOMarch 18, 2005 Michael Podgursky Mark Ehlert Department of Economics University of Missouri - Columbia

2. Missouri Assessment Program • Implemented 1998 through 2000 • Grade ranges tested (elementary, middle, high school) • Math and Science still required • High Stakes for Schools and Teachers • Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) • Low / No Stakes for Students • Blowing off the MAP

3. Meaning of “Proficient” • MAP is “NAEP Consistent” • Ed Week Report (2002); Rand Report (for Carnagie, 2004) • Our own review of results • Very consistent in reading • More rigorous in Math • Research Questions • Do student scores on MAP predict college enrollment? • Does MAP performance predict college performance?

4. MAP test-takers ACT test-takers ACT ∩ MAP Initial Research Data Set

5. Current Research Data ALL Fall 2001 Freshmen who Graduated from a MO High School. Matched data in three stages. • MAP scores with ACT scores using SAMSHA routine • FAFSA data retrieved for unmatched students; matched with MAP using SAMSHA • Demographic variables (BD, race, sex, school –all duplicates removed) MAP test-takers MAP ∩ Mo. PHE Mo. HS Grads in Public Higher Ed Fall 2001

6. Final Sample

7. MAP and ACT Correspondence Correlations between MAP scale scores and ACT scores ACT scores and MAP performance levels Proficient on MAP = ?? ACT

8. MAP and ACT Scores Com Arts and ACT r = .765 Math and ACT r = .756

9. Proficiency Levels and ACT Scores MAP Math

10. Proficiency Levels and ACT Scores MAP Communication Arts

11. Proficient on MAP is “Good”

12. Enrollment in MO Public Colleges Data -- EMSAS Fall 2001 Enrollment File • Proportion in MAP Levels Enrolling • Distribution -- 2 and 4 year colleges

13. Percent Enrolling in MO College

14. Enrollment by Type of MO College

15. Performance in Higher Education Data – EMSAS Term Performance • Average GPA at end of 1st semester • “Satisfactory progress” • Retention to 2nd Semester • Overall performance end of 1st Year

16. 1st Semester GPA

17. 1st Semester Progress 12+ Credits and 2.0 GPA

18. Retention to 2nd Semester

19. Performance – Year 1 24+ Credits and 2.0 GPA

20. Correlations – Outcomes and Test Scores

21. Summary • MAP and ACT scores strongly correlated • Math more stringent cut scores than Com Arts • Significant % low MAP scorers enroll in public higher education • Low MAP scorers more likely to enroll in 2 year colleges • College performance varies with MAP scores • Students with NO MAP scores have poorest performance • MAP and ACT add little to HS rank in predicting 1st year college performance

22. Future Research Examine subgroups Statistical prediction models Financial aid Sophomore / Junior year results Add Another Cohort (June ’02 Grads) Labor Market Earnings

23. Questions? Suggestions? Dr. Michael Podgursky podgurskym@missouri.edu Dr. Mark Ehlert ehlertm@missouri.edu 573 882-5559

24. Blowing off the MAP Black 10th Grade Math Test Takers White 10th Grade Math Test Takers

25. MAP and NAEP Reading Results Student Percentage at Proficient/Above Achievement Levels Grade 4 2003 NAEP Reading Results 34% Grade 3 2002 MAP Reading Results* 39% Grade 8 2003 NAEP Reading Results 35% Grade 7 2002 MAP Reading Results* 35% *same cohort

26. MAP and NAEP Math Results Student Percentage at Proficient/Above Achievement Levels Grade 4 2003 NAEP Math Results 30% Grade 4 2003 MAP Math Results 37% Grade 8 2003 NAEP Math Results 28% Grade 8 2003 MAP Math Results 14%