In-Pool Results Thread 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My child also got VQN of 132. Verbal was only 112.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Mine got 150 VQN with 128 verbal (perfect Q and near perfect nonverbal) and I remember her coming home saying that the pictures in the test did not make sense. I thought it was non-verbal at the time but seeing the score now I suspect she took verbal that day. She is in pool at our rather competitive school. I know of another family in school with close to 140 VQN and 155 NNAT that did not make the pool.

[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.

There are a few things to unpack with this. First is that the CogAT given to 2nd graders and under is fundamentally different from that given to 3rd grade and older. The second grade one is almost entirely pictures with no time limit. The teacher has to read each question to the kids, meaning some might get bored if the process takes too long. The older kid version is filled with timed tests that may be difficult to finish in the allotted time. The verbal section will use words and not pictures. The Quantitative uses more numbers and fewer pictures of quantity.

Also, testing itself isn't that accurate. It's a long read, but you might want to plow through this study. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ746292.pdf
One of the conclusions is that on ability tests, only 40% of the kids who scored in the 97th percentile or higher in 3rd grade still scored in the 97th percentile or higher in 4th.

[Anonymous]

NNAT: 125
COGAT: 137

Not in in Braddock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NNAT: 125
COGAT: 137

Not in in Braddock.

Braddock seems to have wide gap between ES schools in term of cogat/nnat scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT: 125
COGAT: 137

Not in in Braddock.

Braddock seems to have wide gap between ES schools in term of cogat/nnat scores

Really depends on your kid’s grade and kids in that grade at the school. If your kid has 100 kids, your kid needs to be top 10. If there are 10 kids who scored higher, your kid is out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT: 125
COGAT: 137

Not in in Braddock.

Braddock seems to have wide gap between ES schools in term of cogat/nnat scores

Really depends on your kid’s grade and kids in that grade at the school. If your kid has 100 kids, your kid needs to be top 10. If there are 10 kids who scored higher, your kid is out.

Yes, but assuming the information is correct, there have been enough data points posted for Braddock that it points out the unevenness of the current methodology for determining the "in pool" kids. Early in the thread, two kids with similar scores in the 120's, one got in, one didn't; then one kid with both scores in the 130's didn't make the pool, now this last one with an average score of 131 didn't make the pool (& the higher score was a 137 CogAT ~98.46 percentile for those who believe that gets the heavier weighting). Mind you, these kids don't even get reviewed unless they are referred. And they are probably all competing for spots at the same center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT: 125
COGAT: 137

Not in in Braddock.

Braddock seems to have wide gap between ES schools in term of cogat/nnat scores

Really depends on your kid’s grade and kids in that grade at the school. If your kid has 100 kids, your kid needs to be top 10. If there are 10 kids who scored higher, your kid is out.

Yes, but assuming the information is correct, there have been enough data points posted for Braddock that it points out the unevenness of the current methodology for determining the "in pool" kids. Early in the thread, two kids with similar scores in the 120's, one got in, one didn't; then one kid with both scores in the 130's didn't make the pool, now this last one with an average score of 131 didn't make the pool (& the higher score was a 137 CogAT ~98.46 percentile for those who believe that gets the heavier weighting). Mind you, these kids don't even get reviewed unless they are referred. And they are probably all competing for spots at the same center.

It would suggest the unevenness of the schools in the pyramid, more than the unevenness of the methodology. Although it perhaps suggests that the center school, rather than the base school, should be the point of comparison.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone from GBW get in? We haven’t received any “in-pool” email yet but our AART teacher has been OOO since November. Not sure if that has anything to do with lack of notification or did my child simply not make it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone from GBW get in? We haven’t received any “in-pool” email yet but our AART teacher has been OOO since November. Not sure if that has anything to do with lack of notification or did my child simply not make it.

The in-pool notification is from the central office - your AART and school are not involved. Your kid didn't make the top 10% cut at your school. If you parent referred, they will still be considered for the program. If not, you'll have to wait and apply next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone from GBW get in? We haven’t received any “in-pool” email yet but our AART teacher has been OOO since November. Not sure if that has anything to do with lack of notification or did my child simply not make it.

The in-pool notification is from the central office - your AART and school are not involved. Your kid didn't make the top 10% cut at your school. If you parent referred, they will still be considered for the program. If not, you'll have to wait and apply next year.

+1 but AARTs do assemble the parent referral packets and sounds like this one was OOO well before the parent deadline. Did your school assign someone else to do this in their absence?

[Anonymous]

No, but school did state AART teacher comes back in January and will review all parent submissions at that point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, but school did state AART teacher comes back in January and will review all parent submissions at that point

Ooof, but that doesn't give him/her much time to get to know the kids. My kids have already all gone through the process (most recent was last year) and our AART used level II pull-outs to get work samples and get to know the kids before the packets were assembled in February. The school put a good bit of effort into making sure every kid they thought might be full-time AAP material was in level II in 2nd grade.

[Anonymous]

Question from someone less familiar with this process and the CoGAT... my DD will be coming from another district to FCPS next year. She is currently in GT where we are based on her CoGAT... which was a 123, but says 94th percentile. But this was a CogAT from 2017. Is it fair to compare her scores to those being shared here or is it different year to year? Trying to gauge what chance we have of getting her into AAP when we move! THANK you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question from someone less familiar with this process and the CoGAT... my DD will be coming from another district to FCPS next year. She is currently in GT where we are based on her CoGAT... which was a 123, but says 94th percentile. But this was a CogAT from 2017. Is it fair to compare her scores to those being shared here or is it different year to year? Trying to gauge what chance we have of getting her into AAP when we move! THANK you!

COGAT normalizes its performance to percentiles, so yes, it's fair to compare year to year to know how they would have fared in the selection process here. In 2017, FFX county used an "in-pool" score of 132 for automatic referral (but not admission) to the central pool to make a decision. For reference, 123 is a good score, but would have had to be supported from the teacher through samples and Old GBRS/new HOPE forms to get in.

Being 8 years later, your child would be entering or in midst of HS, making this discussion moot. AAP is NOT applicable to high-school, as the program ends in 8th grade.