Primary Framework and MAP Growth Case Study (2015– 2018)

---

From 2015 to 2018, Numeracy Consultants, in partnership with classroom educators, conducted a field-based case study to explore whether student growth on the Primary Numeracy Assessment and Framework which are part of the Primary Numeracy Intervention Program aligned with gains on the NWEA MAP Assessment, a widely used adaptive, research-based growth measure. Over the four-year period, 55 early elementary students identified as at-risk participated in targeted math intervention for a minimum of 12 weeks.

The findings revealed that most students who demonstrated progress on the Primary Numeracy Framework also showed measurable growth on the NWEA MAP, suggesting a strong, though not universal, correlation between the two. The study was implemented by practitioners in real school settings, not by academic researchers, and reflects the realities of applied intervention work rather than controlled experimental design.

While the results are encouraging, limitations such as the small sample size, short-term intervention window, and narrow grade range call for cautious interpretation. Nevertheless, the study offers promising evidence that the Primary Numeracy Framework can be an effective and predictive tool for guiding math instruction and supporting growth among struggling early learners.

Early numeracy skills are foundational to students’ overall academic success and future achievement in mathematics (Duncan et al., 2007; National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008). Students struggling in early math often face cumulative difficulties, highlighting the urgency of timely, effective interventions (Gersten et al., 2009).

Effective intervention depends on reliable assessment tools and frameworks that translate data into actionable instruction (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Formative assessments providing detailed diagnostic feedback are shown to improve student outcomes by allowing teachers to tailor instruction precisely (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Heritage, 2010).

The NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment is widely used for growth measurement, offering adaptive, norm-referenced data to guide personalized learning goals (Betebenner, 2009). However, while MAP quantifies growth, it lacks detailed diagnostic insight into specific numeracy skills critical for targeted interventions.

This study, led by Numeracy Consultants and classroom teachers from 2015–2018, investigated the relationship between growth on the Primary Numeracy Framework, a diagnostic and instructional tool, and growth on the NWEA MAP assessment for at-risk students in Grades 1–3. Conducted in real-world classrooms rather than controlled academic settings, the study aimed to assess the framework’s practical effectiveness and predictive validity.

The research question was:
Does progress on the Primary Numeracy Framework predict measurable growth on the NWEA MAP Assessment in early elementary at-risk students receiving targeted math intervention?

Study Duration and Sample

The study was conducted over four academic years (2015–2018), tracking the progress of 55 students for a minimum of 16 weeks each. Annual student participation was as follows:

• 2015 – 14 students
• 2016 – 17 students
• 2017 – 11 students
• 2018 – 13 students

Demographics

• Age Range: 6–9 years (Grades 1–3)
•  Race: 27 Caucasian, 14 Hispanic, 12 African American, 2 Other
•  Gender: 29 Female, 26 Male

Students were screened using the NWEA MAP assessment at the beginning of the academic year (August–September). Eligibility was determined based on the following:

• Scoring below the 30th percentile on the NWEA MAP
• Or meeting state/federal at-risk identification standards
   

Only qualifying students received the intervention and were included in the study’s data set. Students were re-assessed at the end of the intervention cycle (December–January).

 Each qualified student participated in a structured numeracy intervention program:

• Duration: Minimum of 12 weeks
• Frequency: At least 4 days per week
• Instructional Time: No less than 90 minutes per week
• Format: 1:1 or small group (≤ 5 students)
   

Teachers administered the Primary Numeracy Assessment and used the Primary Numeracy Framework to identify student needs. Instruction was guided by this data, alongside training in the Primary Numeracy Assessment Program provided by Numeracy Consultants.

Primary Numeracy Growth Closely Mirrors MAP Progress for Most Students

Analysis of the data revealed that when students made progress on the Primary Numeracy Framework, most, but not all, showed corresponding growth on the NWEA MAP Assessment. This suggests a strong, though not perfect, correlation between the two measures of student development.

Specifically:

• 73% of students who progressed on the Primary Numeracy Framework met or exceeded their individualized RIT growth goals on the MAP test.
   
• These students showed measurable movement through multiple levels of the framework, indicating meaningful gains in conceptual understanding.
   
•  The remaining 27% of students, despite receiving the same structured intervention, showed limited or inconsistent progress, some advanced on the Primary Numeracy Framework but did not meet their RIT growth targets on the MAP assessment, indicating that gains on the framework did not always translate into measurable MAP growth for all learners. 

This pattern suggests that the Primary Numeracy Framework is generally predictive of MAP growth, but not universally so. Factors such as learning profiles, attendance, or the intensity of intervention and teacher quality may have influenced the outcomes for the students who did not show parallel gains.

Grade-Level and Instructional Format Findings

• Second-grade students demonstrated the most significant average growth on both the Primary Numeracy Framework and the MAP assessment. While this may be partly due to sample size, it could also reflect a developmental sweet spot for numeracy acquisition.
   
• There was no observable difference in outcomes based on instructional format: students receiving one-on-one intervention performed similarly to those in small group settings, reinforcing the efficiency and flexibility of the program design.

These findings affirm the Primary Numeracy Framework as a valid, actionable tool for both screening and instruction. The strong alignment with MAP growth results suggests that when implemented with fidelity, the program can not only support measurable gains but also empower educators with precision in their intervention planning.

One particularly valuable insight was the lack of dependence on group size for student growth, suggesting flexibility in staffing and scheduling without compromising intervention outcomes.

Teacher feedback reinforced the program’s usability and instructional relevance. The consistent identification of hidden skill gaps by the framework indicates that many struggling students might otherwise remain underserved without this level of targeted diagnostic insight. 

It is important to note that this field study was not conducted by a university-affiliated research staff or independent academic research institution. Instead, the study was led by Numeracy Consultants in collaboration with classroom teachers in real-world school settings. The goal was to evaluate the effectiveness and instructional relevance of the Primary Numeracy Framework in authentic classroom environments, using available tools and practitioner-driven implementation methods.

While the study maintained consistent protocols for assessment, data collection, and intervention delivery, it did not operate under the controls typically associated with formal academic research. As such, results should be viewed through the lens of practical field implementation, with a focus on applied outcomes rather than experimental precision.

 While the findings of this study are promising, several significant limitations must be acknowledged:

• Sample Size: The total sample included only 55 students over four years, with annual subgroup sizes ranging from 11 to 17 students. This small sample limits the statistical power of the analysis and raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings. Variability in year-to-year results may have been amplified by outliers or cohort-specific factors.
   
• Narrow Grade Band: The study was confined to early elementary students (Grades 1–3), restricting its applicability to upper elementary or middle-grade contexts. It remains unclear whether the observed correlations between the Primary Numeracy Framework and MAP growth would hold in older populations or across different developmental stages.
   
• Short-Term Scope: The study tracked student outcomes over a 12–16 week intervention period. No follow-up data was collected to evaluate long-term retention, sustained growth, or performance on summative state assessments. As such, the durability of the observed gains is unknown.
   

These limitations suggest the need for caution in interpretation. Future research should prioritize:

• Larger and more diverse student samples,
• A broader range of grade levels and school contexts, and
• Longitudinal tracking of student performance over multiple years.
   

Only through these enhancements can the true predictive strength and instructional value of the Primary Numeracy Framework be confidently validated across varied educational settings.

This four-year field study demonstrates that the Primary Numeracy Framework is a robust and practical tool for guiding early math intervention. The evidence shows a strong positive correlation between student progress on the framework and growth on the NWEA MAP Assessment, with 73% of students meeting or exceeding their individualized growth targets. These results underscore the framework’s effectiveness in promoting measurable academic gains for the majority of at-risk learners.

Importantly, the study also reveals that intervention effectiveness does not depend on instructional group size, providing schools with flexible options for delivering support without compromising outcomes. Teacher feedback further validates the framework’s diagnostic precision and instructional value, highlighting its role in uncovering hidden skill gaps and empowering educators to tailor instruction effectively.

While promising, the findings also reflect variability among students, nearly one-quarter did not meet growth goals, indicating a need for ongoing refinement and differentiated approaches to fully meet diverse learner needs. Future research with larger, more diverse samples and longer-term follow-up is recommended to build on these insights.

Overall, the Primary Numeracy Framework represents a meaningful advancement in early math intervention, aligning diagnostic assessment with actionable instruction to support sustained student growth.

Betebenner, D. W. (2009). Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Interpretations of NWEA MAP Scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(4), 42–51.
 

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
 

Duncan, G. J., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446.
 

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(5), 10–17.
 

Gersten, R., et al. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities. The Future of Children, 19(1), 143–164.
 

Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Corwin Press.