Why are the scores so high this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The benchmark scores vary each year to result in about 2,000 students in the pool. When the NNAT2 (vs. the NNAT) was first given, the number of kids in the pool dropped when they kept the benchmark at 132 so they lowered it to 130. With the Cogat Form 7 this year, if they had left the benchmark at 130, they would have over 5,000 kids in the pool. (That's 5,000 screening files to prepare and review.) So they adjusted the benchmark score to 132 to include a 132 on any CogAT subtest. They were still over 3,000 kids in the pool. So they contacted the author of the test, who suggested they use the CogAT composite of 132. That results in a little over 2,500 students in the pool.

They can cook the numbers however they want. Everyone I know whose child got a 132 on a subtest did a referral--so the screening files still need to be prepared.

This is such arbitrary BS. I really do hope they heavily weight the GBRS, even if my own child doesn't make it in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The benchmark scores vary each year to result in about 2,000 students in the pool. When the NNAT2 (vs. the NNAT) was first given, the number of kids in the pool dropped when they kept the benchmark at 132 so they lowered it to 130. With the Cogat Form 7 this year, if they had left the benchmark at 130, they would have over 5,000 kids in the pool. (That's 5,000 screening files to prepare and review.) So they adjusted the benchmark score to 132 to include a 132 on any CogAT subtest. They were still over 3,000 kids in the pool. So they contacted the author of the test, who suggested they use the CogAT composite of 132. That results in a little over 2,500 students in the pool.

They can cook the numbers however they want. Everyone I know whose child got a 132 on a subtest did a referral--so the screening files still need to be prepared.

This is true - there is always the referral process.

[Anonymous]

I think they count on people not understanding the referral process or not thinking that they have a chance if the kid isn't in the pool automatically to help keep the numbers low.

[Anonymous]

No - these are highly standardized test - scores usually will not change year over year.

Its more likely that parents are reporting this information on this forum. And of course, the one's who scored high tend to be more vocal.

Difference between 130 and 132 is negligible. As I recall both are in the highest bucket.

PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/aapac.shtml

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No - these are highly standardized test - scores usually will not change year over year.

Its more likely that parents are reporting this information on this forum. And of course, the one's who scored high tend to be more vocal.

Difference between 130 and 132 is negligible. As I recall both are in the highest bucket.

PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.

I believe 130 and 132 are both in the 98th percentile.

[Anonymous]

thanks - useful site - but dont see the Feb 7th Meeting minutes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/aapac.shtml

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:thanks - useful site - but dont see the Feb 7th Meeting minutes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/aapac.shtml

They haven't updated since December. The PP must be pretty hardcore about getting her kid in to be attending the committee meetings.

[Anonymous]

The PP was just trying to help. No need to bring out the knives.


"The PP must be pretty hardcore about getting her kid in to be attending the committee meetings. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PP was just trying to help. No need to bring out the knives.


"The PP must be pretty hardcore about getting her kid in to be attending the committee meetings. "

I am not the PP, but perhaps they are on the committee and therefore attend the meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:thanks - useful site - but dont see the Feb 7th Meeting minutes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP: what is AAPAC? Do we have link to meeting minutes, etc.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/aapac.shtml

They haven't updated since December. The PP must be pretty hardcore about getting her kid in to be attending the committee meetings.

I am a Committee member. Minutes from tonight's meeting will be reviewed and likely approved at the next AAPAC meeting. They will then be posted on the website.

[Anonymous]

Still seems like 2500 kids in pool is way too many-I had heard usual number of kids in pool is about 1200 and that of those, 2/3rds are accepted. Will they be forced to take more in AAP classes this year or will most of the pool kids get weeded out by GRBS? Also, seems like there shouldn't be much room for parent referred kids if the pool is so large.

[Anonymous]

And why don't we want 5000 children to make the pool? Can't more AAP classes be added? Seems like another way of dumbing down education if we just make the cutoff higher.

[Anonymous]

Another reason score is higher, CogAt form 6 test score range from 50 - 150. This year's form 7 CogAt test scroe range from 50 - 160.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still seems like 2500 kids in pool is way too many-I had heard usual number of kids in pool is about 1200 and that of those, 2/3rds are accepted. Will they be forced to take more in AAP classes this year or will most of the pool kids get weeded out by GRBS? Also, seems like there shouldn't be much room for parent referred kids if the pool is so large.

As has been rehashed here repeatedly, a high test score is only one indicator of a gifted child (and a poor indicator, if the child has been coached). Unless you have a spectacularly biased teacher/committee, GBRS seems like a very fair weed-out process for all children, whether in pool or referred.