It's official: CogAT scores are not age-adjusted this year!!!

[Anonymous]

New to the county.
Question: The CogAT scores of previous years were age-adjusted??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHo cares? This is irrelevant.

I believe FCPS should care as I am quite certain they are going to face a major class action against them.Simply put the lack of age-adjusting (I am shocked to hear that this is the case!) is a blatant age discrimination: the youngest kids in 2nd grade are screwed in favor of older kids.
Sure, you have the alternative to go for the WISC, but:
1. One should not be forced to pay for such a test just because someone at FCPS screwed up the COGAT test administration. If this year's class has, say, 13k kids, I can easily see 1/4 of them moving against FCPS asking it to pay for the test. That could end up being a $1.5 Million tab for FCPS (up to 3k kids at $500 per kid)

2. Let's say that some families decide to sue FCPS just because their borderline kids did not get into AAP and they 'had to opt for private schools in order to get the education that their kids deserved but were denied because of FCPS's age discriminative practices'. The cost per child could end up being $30k/year times four years: $120k. Let's 100 families decide to pursue and sue FCPS to recover this cost, we are looking at $12 million (plus legal fees).

One thing is certain, someone at FCPS screwed up big time and they (FCPS) will end up paying for that. If the age-discriminative COGAT test scores are allowed in the AAP review, FCPS may be opening itself up to major legal action.

You assume that there are thousands of summer birthday children whose scores were just shy of the cut off for the automatic pool who would have made the pool if only the test was age adjusted.

That might not be the case at all.

It might very well be a very tiny number of kids who are affected and whose scores were just enough outside of the cutoff for age norming to make a difference.

And in that group, many of them might have qualified already with their nnat score. So that makes the number even tinier.

Let's say those remaining kids parent refer, and most of them get in (or at least those whose nnat's were just outside the cut off) How on earth does that justify a class action lawsuit?

If you kid's scores are outside the margin for which age norming would have made a difference, then you have no argument at all.

Also, saying that the older kids are taking spots from the younger kids is not a valid argument either. FCPS allows for every child who qualifies to have a space in AAP. There is no cap. So those leagues of older kids that you are talking about are not taking a space from anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing is there are younger kids who pass the cut-off. Any evidence that there is an overwhelming number of older kids in the pool?
Agree with PP, that the child's birthdate is visible to committee, and it can be taken into consideration.

Sure, there are younger kids who pass a cut-off, this is not the question. The scores are comparative. So, if I have child A who gets, say 90, and that child is a December child, and child B who got an 88 percentile, and that child is a July child, the idea communicated to the review board is that child A is 'more gifted' than child B when the exact opposite is the case!

The scores as they are reflect age discrimination, and once such tainted scores are part of the selection process, that process is tainted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New to the county.
Question: The CogAT scores of previous years were age-adjusted??

Yes, as are all other comparable scores in the country!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also, saying that the older kids are taking spots from the younger kids is not a valid argument either. FCPS allows for every child who qualifies to have a space in AAP. There is no cap. So those leagues of older kids that you are talking about are not taking a space from anyone else.

An older kid will get an inflated percentage, because it is compared to the non-adjusted performance of younger kids. So, if you want to correct the statement, let's go with 'older kids may end up in AAP based on their scores without deserving it'. Would you agree with that?

[Anonymous]

Okay PP,

We understand you are angry. We understand you want to sue because your kid did not make the pool. We understand that you want other people to sue with you. You have made that crystal clear across many, many threads. Very prolifically I might add.

So, out of curiousity, how close was your child's score to the automatic pool cutoff? How young of a second grader is your child? A late August birthday? A September birthday? A kid who went to school in Hawai, so started kindergarten as a 4 year old and did not turn 5 until the end of December?

Was the nnat close, just outside the cutoff?

Have you gotten indication from your child's teacher that they can't do the work or that the teacher thinks AAP will be a terrible idea for your child, and therefore you anticipate a very low gbrs?

Why so angry? Why so eager to sue, over a 3rd grade class placement that you can refer your child for, appeal if she doesn't get in, and refer again next year if she doesn't get placed this year? Help us understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, saying that the older kids are taking spots from the younger kids is not a valid argument either. FCPS allows for every child who qualifies to have a space in AAP. There is no cap. So those leagues of older kids that you are talking about are not taking a space from anyone else.

An older kid will get an inflated percentage, because it is compared to the non-adjusted performance of younger kids. So, if you want to correct the statement, let's go with 'older kids may end up in AAP based on their scores without deserving it'. Would you agree with that?

No, because if the older kid can't handle it and received that score as a fluke, it will show on the nnat, the gbrs, the work samples and the report cards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is there are younger kids who pass the cut-off. Any evidence that there is an overwhelming number of older kids in the pool?
Agree with PP, that the child's birthdate is visible to committee, and it can be taken into consideration.

Sure, there are younger kids who pass a cut-off, this is not the question. The scores are comparative. So, if I have child A who gets, say 90, and that child is a December child, and child B who got an 88 percentile, and that child is a July child, the idea communicated to the review board is that child A is 'more gifted' than child B when the exact opposite is the case!

The scores as they are reflect age discrimination, and once such tainted scores are part of the selection process, that process is tainted.

If you had a child who received an 88%, age norming probably wouldn't have put them in the pool anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHo cares? This is irrelevant.

I believe FCPS should care as I am quite certain they are going to face a major class action against them.Simply put the lack of age-adjusting (I am shocked to hear that this is the case!) is a blatant age discrimination: the youngest kids in 2nd grade are screwed in favor of older kids.
Sure, you have the alternative to go for the WISC, but:
1. One should not be forced to pay for such a test just because someone at FCPS screwed up the COGAT test administration. If this year's class has, say, 13k kids, I can easily see 1/4 of them moving against FCPS asking it to pay for the test. That could end up being a $1.5 Million tab for FCPS (up to 3k kids at $500 per kid)

2. Let's say that some families decide to sue FCPS just because their borderline kids did not get into AAP and they 'had to opt for private schools in order to get the education that their kids deserved but were denied because of FCPS's age discriminative practices'. The cost per child could end up being $30k/year times four years: $120k. Let's 100 families decide to pursue and sue FCPS to recover this cost, we are looking at $12 million (plus legal fees).

One thing is certain, someone at FCPS screwed up big time and they (FCPS) will end up paying for that. If the age-discriminative COGAT test scores are allowed in the AAP review, FCPS may be opening itself up to major legal action.

You assume that there are thousands of summer birthday children whose scores were just shy of the cut off for the automatic pool who would have made the pool if only the test was age adjusted.

That might not be the case at all.

It might very well be a very tiny number of kids who are affected and whose scores were just enough outside of the cutoff for age norming to make a difference.

And in that group, many of them might have qualified already with their nnat score. So that makes the number even tinier.

Let's say those remaining kids parent refer, and most of them get in (or at least those whose nnat's were just outside the cut off) How on earth does that justify a class action lawsuit?

If you kid's scores are outside the margin for which age norming would have made a difference, then you have no argument at all.

Also, saying that the older kids are taking spots from the younger kids is not a valid argument either. FCPS allows for every child who qualifies to have a space in AAP. There is no cap. So those leagues of older kids that you are talking about are not taking a space from anyone else.

Damn, you're sounding so rational PP. You're taking away that lady's chance to get in a tizzy and throw around threats of suing FCPS! How else is she going to pass her time???

[Anonymous]

there is no cause of action in law for age discrimination in placement into public school aap programs.
No such thing.
so this whole thread is just dumb and off base.

[Anonymous]

So now with this CogAT, younger ones (say May - Aug) who scored 95%ile are theoretically smarter than those older ones (say Sep - Apr) who also scored 95%ile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, saying that the older kids are taking spots from the younger kids is not a valid argument either. FCPS allows for every child who qualifies to have a space in AAP. There is no cap. So those leagues of older kids that you are talking about are not taking a space from anyone else.

An older kid will get an inflated percentage, because it is compared to the non-adjusted performance of younger kids. So, if you want to correct the statement, let's go with 'older kids may end up in AAP based on their scores without deserving it'. Would you agree with that?

No, because if the older kid can't handle it and received that score as a fluke, it will show on the nnat, the gbrs, the work samples and the report cards.

So, sneaking in a misleading score is OK because other scores/reports will correct for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So now with this CogAT, younger ones (say May - Aug) who scored 95%ile are theoretically smarter than those older ones (say Sep - Apr) who also scored 95%ile?

That seems to be a fair statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, saying that the older kids are taking spots from the younger kids is not a valid argument either. FCPS allows for every child who qualifies to have a space in AAP. There is no cap. So those leagues of older kids that you are talking about are not taking a space from anyone else.

An older kid will get an inflated percentage, because it is compared to the non-adjusted performance of younger kids. So, if you want to correct the statement, let's go with 'older kids may end up in AAP based on their scores without deserving it'. Would you agree with that?

No, because if the older kid can't handle it and received that score as a fluke, it will show on the nnat, the gbrs, the work samples and the report cards.

So, sneaking in a misleading score is OK because other scores/reports will correct for that?

Persistent now, aren't we? How the heck is that sneaking in a misleading score? FCPS decided, for whatever reason, that for the FAT test they wanted to pull the top 5% per grade, without consideration for age.

If the older child is in the top 5%, then they qualified, fair and square. Their score is just as valid as the just turned 7 year old late August birthday child who also scored in the top 5%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there is no cause of action in law for age discrimination in placement into public school aap programs.
No such thing.
so this whole thread is just dumb and off base.

Regardless of whether there is a basis for suing, no norming based on age is just another example of how poorly administered the AAP admission process in Fairfax County is. And no, this is not sour grapes, my DC is in AAP, I just think the whole system is a mess.