In this brief, discover how students who engaged with MAP Accelerator during the 2021-22 school year at the recommended dosage of 30+ minutes per week exceeded growth projections by 26% to 38%. In an additional a year-over year analysis, students were compared to themselves, and it was found that those who increased their usage of MAP Accelerator from the first year to the second year saw a corresponding improvement in their achievement growth.

A 4-page document outlining the user norms for MAP Growth tests in Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Geometry. Includes details on how the user norms were developed, how user norms differ from national representative norms, and what years of data were used to craft them. Detailed charts are included that cover fall to winter, Fall to spring, and winter to spring norms.

In this guide, see how MAP Growth data supports effective instructional strategies learned from schools generating extraordinary growth for kids across all grades and achievement levels.

New data shows progress toward academic recovery stalled in 2022-23. In this special briefing, Dr. Karyn Lewis provides more context and details to this new report on the state of academic gains and achievement levels.

This brief provides a policy perspective into the recent NWEA research on how COVID-19 has affected student learning. It builds on previous research showing achievement levels stalling over the 2022–23 school year from the previous year.

This paper describes high quality teaching practices in two schools that produce exceptional growth for all kinds of students. These practices focus on making the most of instructional time and exposing students to high quality content in a variety of contexts. They prove teachers don’t need to choose between differentiating to meet students’ needs and giving them access to grade-level learning.

This brief is a response to Paul Zavitkovsky’s paper titled“Data Rich/Information Poor,”and includes NWEA’s high-level comments and concerns regarding Mr. Zavitkovsky’s claims. The brief highlights five areas that challenge the strength, validity, and quality of some of Mr. Zavitkosky’s “findings,” and as such, provide context for interpreting his results with caution and scrutiny.