In-Pool Results Thread 2024

[Anonymous]

Cogat: 136
NNAT: 138
Braddock
Out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cogat: 159
NNAT: 160
Pyramid: Faifax
In Pool (yes/no): yes

Is that a typo? You meant not in pool right? 😂

Huh? Elaborate.

She was joking because the previous posters scores were so high

I thought it's because cogat does not go that high?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cogat: 136
NNAT: 138
Braddock
Out

Which school in Lake Braddock where these great scores are not in pool? There’s another post about being in for Lake Braddock with lower scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cogat: 159
NNAT: 160
Pyramid: Faifax
In Pool (yes/no): yes

Is that a typo? You meant not in pool right? 😂

Huh? Elaborate.

She was joking because the previous posters scores were so high

I thought it's because cogat does not go that high?

Max score for both CogAT and NNAT is 160.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cogat: 126
NNAT: 123
Pyramid: Lake Braddock
In Pool (yes/no): yes

Plus parent and teacher referred.

Which school? Mine is really similar but not in pool in Kings Glen
Cogat: 122
NNAT: 127
Pyramid: Lake Braddock
In Pool (yes/no): no

Something off with "universal screener" at Lake Braddock; see recent post with scores in the 130's that didn't make the cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cogat: 126
NNAT: 123
Pyramid: Lake Braddock
In Pool (yes/no): yes

Plus parent and teacher referred.

Which school? Mine is really similar but not in pool in Kings Glen
Cogat: 122
NNAT: 127
Pyramid: Lake Braddock
In Pool (yes/no): no

Something off with "universal screener" at Lake Braddock; see recent post with scores in the 130's that didn't make the cut.

Yeah I am not sure why the one with scores in 130s didn’t make it. I am not really familiar with the pyramid but I've heard Sangster is well resourced so it’s likely that they comes from that school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cogat: 126
NNAT: 123
Pyramid: Lake Braddock
In Pool (yes/no): yes

Plus parent and teacher referred.

Which school? Mine is really similar but not in pool in Kings Glen
Cogat: 122
NNAT: 127
Pyramid: Lake Braddock
In Pool (yes/no): no

Something off with "universal screener" at Lake Braddock; see recent post with scores in the 130's that didn't make the cut.

Yeah I am not sure why the one with scores in 130s didn’t make it. I am not really familiar with the pyramid but I've heard Sangster is well resourced so it’s likely that they comes from that school.

Why are you surprised? Different elementary schools will have different kids at the top. I thought my child would not be in pool in McLean with a sub 140 score but he was in. I thought we would need 140s at our center school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cogat: 159
NNAT: 160
Pyramid: Faifax
In Pool (yes/no): yes

Is that a typo? You meant not in pool right? 😂

Huh? Elaborate.

She was joking because the previous posters scores were so high

I thought it's because cogat does not go that high?

Max score for both CogAT and NNAT is 160.

If they are testing that high on both CogAT and NNAT, shouldn't their 2nd grader be applying to college?

[Anonymous]

I find it really interesting how DC's CogAT scores varied this year (5th grade, new district) vs. the first time (2nd grade, FCPS). Verbal subscore dropped from low 150s to low 130s (~20 points). Quant and Non-Verbal subscores increased from mid 130s to mid 140s (~10 points each). Composite nearly the same.

I haven't really observed any particular growth in their age-normed Quant/Non-Verbal skills nor decline in their age-normed Verbal skills. So I'm guessing this is less a function of their aptitudes in these areas meaningfully shifting in past 3 years, and more likely just the random variation for a given student if you take the one test one day/week/month vs. another. Could be a bit of both, but just knowing DC as well as I do it seems more the latter.

FWIW they also took NNAT and WISC in 2021 (WISC as a backup in case we needed to appeal). NNAT tracked closer to 2021 CogAT on Non-Verbal... WISC Visual-Spatial tracked closer to 2024 CogAT on Non-Verbal. WISC Verbal tracked closed to 2024 CogAT Verbal.

I guess my point is it just seems like these scores all have wider-than-I-expected margins-of-error for a given student (10-to-20 point swings). It seems therefore wise that they don't use it as the sole decision criteria and take things like teacher observations and actual work samples into account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it really interesting how DC's CogAT scores varied this year (5th grade, new district) vs. the first time (2nd grade, FCPS). Verbal subscore dropped from low 150s to low 130s (~20 points). Quant and Non-Verbal subscores increased from mid 130s to mid 140s (~10 points each). Composite nearly the same.

I haven't really observed any particular growth in their age-normed Quant/Non-Verbal skills nor decline in their age-normed Verbal skills. So I'm guessing this is less a function of their aptitudes in these areas meaningfully shifting in past 3 years, and more likely just the random variation for a given student if you take the one test one day/week/month vs. another. Could be a bit of both, but just knowing DC as well as I do it seems more the latter.

FWIW they also took NNAT and WISC in 2021 (WISC as a backup in case we needed to appeal). NNAT tracked closer to 2021 CogAT on Non-Verbal... WISC Visual-Spatial tracked closer to 2024 CogAT on Non-Verbal. WISC Verbal tracked closed to 2024 CogAT Verbal.

I guess my point is it just seems like these scores all have wider-than-I-expected margins-of-error for a given student (10-to-20 point swings). It seems therefore wise that they don't use it as the sole decision criteria and take things like teacher observations and actual work samples into account.

In my sample size of 1 kid, the quant and nonverbal on the second grade COGAT were almost identical to the WISC, however there was a 30 point difference on the verbal (higher on WISC). I believe the exclusive use of pictures on the cogat verbal section did not accurately measure my childs ability for that section.

[Anonymous]

I posted earlier, but my kid went from the low 80s percentile wise on quantitative to the 99th, after taking the COGAT in July then Oct this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it really interesting how DC's CogAT scores varied this year (5th grade, new district) vs. the first time (2nd grade, FCPS). Verbal subscore dropped from low 150s to low 130s (~20 points). Quant and Non-Verbal subscores increased from mid 130s to mid 140s (~10 points each). Composite nearly the same.

I haven't really observed any particular growth in their age-normed Quant/Non-Verbal skills nor decline in their age-normed Verbal skills. So I'm guessing this is less a function of their aptitudes in these areas meaningfully shifting in past 3 years, and more likely just the random variation for a given student if you take the one test one day/week/month vs. another. Could be a bit of both, but just knowing DC as well as I do it seems more the latter.

FWIW they also took NNAT and WISC in 2021 (WISC as a backup in case we needed to appeal). NNAT tracked closer to 2021 CogAT on Non-Verbal... WISC Visual-Spatial tracked closer to 2024 CogAT on Non-Verbal. WISC Verbal tracked closed to 2024 CogAT Verbal.

I guess my point is it just seems like these scores all have wider-than-I-expected margins-of-error for a given student (10-to-20 point swings). It seems therefore wise that they don't use it as the sole decision criteria and take things like teacher observations and actual work samples into account.

In my sample size of 1 kid, the quant and nonverbal on the second grade COGAT were almost identical to the WISC, however there was a 30 point difference on the verbal (higher on WISC). I believe the exclusive use of pictures on the cogat verbal section did not accurately measure my childs ability for that section.

My very advanced reader did not do well on verbal cogat but scored high on other sections and managed to still be 98th percentile. Not sure why it is called verbal when it is all pictures. She managed to be in pool despite average verbal cogat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it really interesting how DC's CogAT scores varied this year (5th grade, new district) vs. the first time (2nd grade, FCPS). Verbal subscore dropped from low 150s to low 130s (~20 points). Quant and Non-Verbal subscores increased from mid 130s to mid 140s (~10 points each). Composite nearly the same.

I haven't really observed any particular growth in their age-normed Quant/Non-Verbal skills nor decline in their age-normed Verbal skills. So I'm guessing this is less a function of their aptitudes in these areas meaningfully shifting in past 3 years, and more likely just the random variation for a given student if you take the one test one day/week/month vs. another. Could be a bit of both, but just knowing DC as well as I do it seems more the latter.

FWIW they also took NNAT and WISC in 2021 (WISC as a backup in case we needed to appeal). NNAT tracked closer to 2021 CogAT on Non-Verbal... WISC Visual-Spatial tracked closer to 2024 CogAT on Non-Verbal. WISC Verbal tracked closed to 2024 CogAT Verbal.

I guess my point is it just seems like these scores all have wider-than-I-expected margins-of-error for a given student (10-to-20 point swings). It seems therefore wise that they don't use it as the sole decision criteria and take things like teacher observations and actual work samples into account.

Same here. I didn't know it was all pictures, but "verbal" was weakest of the three sub scores @ 124. VQN = 132 NNAT was high @ 155. I guess we have to "hope" that DD's HOPE score is good and that NNAT has some weight. Grades have been good but not perfect, and seem to support that quantitative skills are her strength. She is "in pool" at our middling SES school.

In my sample size of 1 kid, the quant and nonverbal on the second grade COGAT were almost identical to the WISC, however there was a 30 point difference on the verbal (higher on WISC). I believe the exclusive use of pictures on the cogat verbal section did not accurately measure my childs ability for that section.

My very advanced reader did not do well on verbal cogat but scored high on other sections and managed to still be 98th percentile. Not sure why it is called verbal when it is all pictures. She managed to be in pool despite average verbal cogat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cogat: 126
NNAT: 123
Pyramid: Lake Braddock
In Pool (yes/no): yes

Plus parent and teacher referred.

Which school? Mine is really similar but not in pool in Kings Glen
Cogat: 122
NNAT: 127
Pyramid: Lake Braddock
In Pool (yes/no): no

Something off with "universal screener" at Lake Braddock; see recent post with scores in the 130's that didn't make the cut.

Yeah I am not sure why the one with scores in 130s didn’t make it. I am not really familiar with the pyramid but I've heard Sangster is well resourced so it’s likely that they comes from that school.

Why are you surprised? Different elementary schools will have different kids at the top. I thought my child would not be in pool in McLean with a sub 140 score but he was in. I thought we would need 140s at our center school.

Not surprised about kid with 130's possibly not making it into pool, but there were two kids in that pyramid with scores in the mid-120's. One made it into pool in mid-120's and one didn't. Could be different ES, but I'd be taking my head if my kid with 130's didn't make the pool and someone in a nearby neighborhood did with a score 10 points lower. All the kids in that ES school would have to have tested poorly. Why would that be? It could be that none understand English and the instructions were read in English, even though per the 2020 study, these tests were chosen to be light on language skills. Then what happens when these kids get into AAP and don't understand their teachers? The "AAP" class becomes an ESOL class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it really interesting how DC's CogAT scores varied this year (5th grade, new district) vs. the first time (2nd grade, FCPS). Verbal subscore dropped from low 150s to low 130s (~20 points). Quant and Non-Verbal subscores increased from mid 130s to mid 140s (~10 points each). Composite nearly the same.

I haven't really observed any particular growth in their age-normed Quant/Non-Verbal skills nor decline in their age-normed Verbal skills. So I'm guessing this is less a function of their aptitudes in these areas meaningfully shifting in past 3 years, and more likely just the random variation for a given student if you take the one test one day/week/month vs. another. Could be a bit of both, but just knowing DC as well as I do it seems more the latter.

FWIW they also took NNAT and WISC in 2021 (WISC as a backup in case we needed to appeal). NNAT tracked closer to 2021 CogAT on Non-Verbal... WISC Visual-Spatial tracked closer to 2024 CogAT on Non-Verbal. WISC Verbal tracked closed to 2024 CogAT Verbal.

I guess my point is it just seems like these scores all have wider-than-I-expected margins-of-error for a given student (10-to-20 point swings). It seems therefore wise that they don't use it as the sole decision criteria and take things like teacher observations and actual work samples into account.

In my sample size of 1 kid, the quant and nonverbal on the second grade COGAT were almost identical to the WISC, however there was a 30 point difference on the verbal (higher on WISC). I believe the exclusive use of pictures on the cogat verbal section did not accurately measure my childs ability for that section.

My very advanced reader did not do well on verbal cogat but scored high on other sections and managed to still be 98th percentile. Not sure why it is called verbal when it is all pictures. She managed to be in pool despite average verbal cogat.

Sorry I messed up that last post. Here is my actual post which I mean to append not embed in the prior post:

Same here. I didn't know it was all pictures, but "verbal" was weakest of the three sub scores @ 124. VQN = 132 NNAT was high @ 155. I guess we have to "hope" that DD's HOPE score is good and that NNAT has some weight. Grades have been good but not perfect, and seem to support that quantitative skills are her strength. She is "in pool" at our middling SES school.