Understanding the Cogat scoring and age norming

[Anonymous]

After reading the passionate posts on this board about age norming, I got a little curious and googled it. I found this Riverside Publishing Guide for Teachers:

http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/pdf/CogAT%206%20short%20guide%20for%20teachers.pdf

Page two describes how the publisher norms the Cogat for Age and Grade. Interestingly, although they do norm by month so as to capture the most appropriate comparison of age peers, the publisher actually recommends that for students who are much younger or much older than the typical student in the grade, it is more appropriate to use GRADE norms, not age norms when the test is used for academic purposes (please see the highlighted area below).

Additionally, the publisher also recommends (as an option) using local district norming over national norming when the district has a population whose scores usually deviate much higher, or much lower than the rest of the country (see paragraph 2).

I found this very interesting. So based on this document created by the publisher, it seems that the cries that fcps is not following publisher guidelines, or that the district is opening itself up for lawsuits is a bit off base to say the least. From the way I am reading the document, it seems like fcps is exactly following the publishers recommendations, re age vs grade norming, and local vs national norming.

I included a link to the document in case you want to see for yourself.

Grade Norms. The grade norms provided for CogAT cover the range from kindergarten
through grade 12 for three test periods in the school year—fall, midyear, and spring. Although
the majority of students in a particular grade fall within a narrow age range, some
individuals are much younger or older than the typical student. For example, at the beginning
of first grade, the majority of students are likely to range in age from 6 years and 2 months to
7 years; however, there are students in some first-grade classes who are 5 years and 9 months
old and some who are 8 years old. When a student’s age is typical for the group, the student’s
age and grade scores will be identical or nearly so. However, if individuals are very young for
the grade, their age scores will be higher than their grade scores. If individuals are much
older than the typical student in the grade, their grade scores will be higher than their age
scores. For individuals who are younger or older than the typical student in a grade, grade
norms, rather than age norms, are more appropriate to use when trying to understand the
students’ academic performance.

Local Norms. In some school systems, the characteristics of the student population differ
markedly from those of a national sample of school-age children. When national norms are
used in these districts, the scores of students on both achievement and ability tests are likely
to be skewed toward the high or low extremes of the score distribution. Local norms provide
another perspective by comparing the performance of each student to others in the local
norm group.

[Anonymous]

Why do you think thay age norm NNAT and IQ tests like WISC? FCPS can't compare Grade normed FAT CogAT with age normed NNAT, WISC, and CogAT (national). They are basically screwed or rather prefer to sacrifice the younger kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think thay age norm NNAT and IQ tests like WISC? FCPS can't compare Grade normed FAT CogAT with age normed NNAT, WISC, and CogAT (national). They are basically screwed or rather prefer to sacrifice the younger kids.

They can, according to the publisher.

I imagine that cogat's publishers recommend using a grade normed sample instead of an age normed sample for academic purposes, because in the end, the kid have to be on the correct level for the grade, not just potentially be at some point in the grade level.

Personally, after reading the publisher's recommendation, I think that fcps is doing the best of both worlds. One test, the nnat, aged normed to capture the potential of the students, even the younger ones. The other test, the cogat/fat test, to capture the most advanced for the grade.

I think it is a very comprehensive way to get both the top academic students, and the highest potential students.

I was slightly on the team age norm, until finding this recommendation from the publisher. The methods of fcps make a lot more sense after reading the publisher's recommendation for how the test should be normed. Not to mention that if your younger child wasn't quite ready this time around you can always try again next year.

[Anonymous]

I have no idea if the discrepancy I am about to report to you is related to the fact that my DC is one of the youngest in her 2nd grade class. I got flamed on another thread because I recommended WISC testing now for young 2nd graders with disappointing FAT scores. I knew in my heart that my girl has exceptional intellectual strengths, and that her county scores (NNAT 124 and FAT 88) were underestimating her ability. Got her WISC results today, and guess what . . . Full Scale IQ is 148, baby! Go ahead and flame away, but now I can rest easy, knowing she will not end up bored out of her mind in general ed. Sweet!

[Anonymous]

PP 00:29 - congratulations! Parents often are correct about their children's abilities.

[Anonymous]

This is where the GBRS comes in: teachers see the students in the classroom and can see how their abilities line up with those of their classmates. Teachers can see which children need to be in the AAP classroom.

[Anonymous]

0029 here. thank you 0035 for the kind words. i was expecting a flame. i agree with you too, 0036, the problem is not every family with a child who is close but no cigar on the county tests has the resources or acumen to parent refer (thus, no gbrs; no chance for admission). i am sad for those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:0029 here. thank you 0035 for the kind words. i was expecting a flame. i agree with you too, 0036, the problem is not every family with a child who is close but no cigar on the county tests has the resources or acumen to parent refer (thus, no gbrs; no chance for admission). i am sad for those kids.

The teachers do a GBRS on every kid. If the kid stands out, then the school makes the referral, even without the in-pool scores. Do not need to have parent referral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:0029 here. thank you 0035 for the kind words. i was expecting a flame. i agree with you too, 0036, the problem is not every family with a child who is close but no cigar on the county tests has the resources or acumen to parent refer (thus, no gbrs; no chance for admission). i am sad for those kids.

The teachers do a GBRS on every kid. If the kid stands out, then the school makes the referral, even without the in-pool scores. Do not need to have parent referral.

I would not rely on that. If you want your child referred, you should do it yourself. Why take the chance, especially since the parent referral process is so simple.

[Anonymous]

FCPS teacher here. Teachers DO NOT generally refer kids (they may recommend that parents refer) and even with strong teacher support many kids who are not in pool do not get in. As long as parents refer, the child who had NNAT 124 and FAT 88 is now very likely in with that WISC score but without it would have been a close call either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea if the discrepancy I am about to report to you is related to the fact that my DC is one of the youngest in her 2nd grade class. I got flamed on another thread because I recommended WISC testing now for young 2nd graders with disappointing FAT scores. I knew in my heart that my girl has exceptional intellectual strengths, and that her county scores (NNAT 124 and FAT 88) were underestimating her ability. Got her WISC results today, and guess what . . . Full Scale IQ is 148, baby! Go ahead and flame away, but now I can rest easy, knowing she will not end up bored out of her mind in general ed. Sweet!

Regarding the fat of 88%tile, on the old system thats about a 126 and 95%tile. An age norm would have added a few points to that but most likely not enough to get to 132, which was the nnat cutoff. You still most likely would have to refer your kid on the old system as well. Outside of the iq score, the 124 fat 88 to me seem very capable scores to make aap considering almost 17% of students get in. No flaming, just pointing out you would have had to refer anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is where the GBRS comes in: teachers see the students in the classroom and can see how their abilities line up with those of their classmates. Teachers can see which children need to be in the AAP classroom.

Not all teachers will see which kids belong in AAP. GBRS is a very subjective scoring system.

[Anonymous]

I've been through this before with my older (4th grade) child. My advice is this. If you are not in the pool but believe your child belongs in full-time AAP, do not get overly invested in dreams that the GBRS, report cards, work samples, or letters/awards will be enough to get your child over the hump. A GBRS of over 14 is probably required to overcome non-pool test scores. If you're in the pool with low-qualifying scores, a GBRS of 11 or 12 might suffice. But this is essentially a numbers game, and without a stellar GBRS, your non-pool child is very unlikely to get in on the first round. Don't cry when you get the rejection letter, just get the WISC and appeal if you still feel strongly that your child needs AAP. As for what WISC scores will suffice on appeal, that's another cup of coffee that we can share after the initial decisions are mailed in early May. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

PP at 10:49 this very well may have been true when you DC went through the process and it may turn out to be true this year but not necessarily and I would hate to see people become unnecessarily discouraged. This year is very different with he custom CogAt and restricting the pool to only 5% in based on CogAt as opposed to 10%-15% into the pool based on CogAt in past years (or at least that's what people on these boards say was how it worked in the past - I realize not everything on DCUM is true). If that is true though, kids at 93% or 94% CogAt this year are situated much better relative to other kids in the grade despite their "nonpool" status compared to some of the kids actually IN the pool in years past. The outcomes may be different for some of those kids who just missed the cutoff so it can't hurt to refer. Nobody will really know how things are going to work this year until the letters are mailed in April.

[Anonymous]

1o:49 here. I completely agree with you 11:57, and I didn't mean to discourage anyone from parent referring. On the contrary, as you say, the "just missed it" kids would have been in the pool in prior years. Also, this year the focus is on the composite FAT score. When my fourth grader applied, anyone who scored 130 or higher on any subtest of the CogAt was in the pool. Very different. I totally agree that a lot of the kids who just missed the pool will get IF the parents have the presence of mind to refer. Thanks for pointing that out, but also, if you parent refer and don't get in on first round, think about WISCing.