Feedback/info on FxAT (Cogat alternative used this year for AAP assessment)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The age norming could be a factor in why some kids got in with a FAT of 84% and others were denied at 91%.

huh? so you mean the committee took age into account even without age norming? seems to prove point of PP about how not age norming FxAT shouldn't be a show-stopper. Remember the people evaluating the files for AAP aren't idiots, they're educators, many of whom probably know a lot more about spotting giftedness than most of the posters here. The test is not the only thing they're looking at. Any one thing won't disqualify a student, it's the information taken as a whole. Do some kids slip through the cracks, I think that's the nation of any evaluation system, but you do have the right to appeal.

I'm not trying to make light of this, but truly in an absolute worst case scenario a child doesn't get into AAP their life is not over, their chances for success are not dashed, they likely won't even fall behind their peers in any sort of lasting way by being in general ed in elementary school. In fact, in the case of a young kid they may even benefit from being at the top of their class. I think this is the main problem with the lowered standards to get into AAP. If it were a smaller percentage who were truly gifted, you wouldn't have so many wannabes whining about age norming.

[Anonymous]

meant "nature" of AAP natch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The age norming could be a factor in why some kids got in with a FAT of 84% and others were denied at 91%.

huh? so you mean the committee took age into account even without age norming? seems to prove point of PP about how not age norming FxAT shouldn't be a show-stopper. Remember the people evaluating the files for AAP aren't idiots, they're educators, many of whom probably know a lot more about spotting giftedness than most of the posters here. The test is not the only thing they're looking at. Any one thing won't disqualify a student, it's the information taken as a whole. Do some kids slip through the cracks, I think that's the nation of any evaluation system, but you do have the right to appeal.

I'm not trying to make light of this, but truly in an absolute worst case scenario a child doesn't get into AAP their life is not over, their chances for success are not dashed, they likely won't even fall behind their peers in any sort of lasting way by being in general ed in elementary school. In fact, in the case of a young kid they may even benefit from being at the top of their class. I think this is the main problem with the lowered standards to get into AAP. If it were a smaller percentage who were truly gifted, you wouldn't have so many wannabes whining about age norming.

Wow, tens of years of scientific research thrown away in one short sentence! I hope that you consider publishing your findings about age and the identification of giftedness, it will definitely cause a stir among scholars worldwide! And while you're at it, please share your credentials - I am sure that they must be not only relevant but very impressive too, to enable you to make such proclamations without any hesitation or hint of self-doubt. Ah, the confidence of ignorance...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The age norming could be a factor in why some kids got in with a FAT of 84% and others were denied at 91%.

huh? so you mean the committee took age into account even without age norming? seems to prove point of PP about how not age norming FxAT shouldn't be a show-stopper. Remember the people evaluating the files for AAP aren't idiots, they're educators, many of whom probably know a lot more about spotting giftedness than most of the posters here. The test is not the only thing they're looking at. Any one thing won't disqualify a student, it's the information taken as a whole. Do some kids slip through the cracks, I think that's the nation of any evaluation system, but you do have the right to appeal.

I'm not trying to make light of this, but truly in an absolute worst case scenario a child doesn't get into AAP their life is not over, their chances for success are not dashed, they likely won't even fall behind their peers in any sort of lasting way by being in general ed in elementary school. In fact, in the case of a young kid they may even benefit from being at the top of their class. I think this is the main problem with the lowered standards to get into AAP. If it were a smaller percentage who were truly gifted, you wouldn't have so many wannabes whining about age norming.

Wow, tens of years of scientific research thrown away in one short sentence! I hope that you consider publishing your findings about age and the identification of giftedness, it will definitely cause a stir among scholars worldwide! And while you're at it, please share your credentials - I am sure that they must be not only relevant but very impressive too, to enable you to make such proclamations without any hesitation or hint of self-doubt. Ah, the confidence of ignorance...

I didn't say age norming didn't matter, obviously it gives you the best apples to apples comparison. What I mean is, the kids who really stand out, really stand out, and if that is missed in one test, it will come out in other things. The NNAT is still age-normed, I believe. I think it would be interesting to see how many instances there were of kids who were missed because of no age-norming on one test, who NEEDED the program and didn't get in eventually. (Like the next year when they might better keep up with the class). This isn't TJ where there's a limit of kids they let into the program. AAP is an "expand to take as many as fit the profile" (and several who don't, in my opinion) sort of thing.

And I have actually researched this issue quite significantly. Was the previous CoGAT better because it set the bar so low it let many non-qualified into the pool. These test-makers and the schools that administer them are fallible, you know. Read the problems Pearson is having in NYC.

[Anonymous]

Also, it' s not as if this was some sort of conspiracy on the part of FCPS. The reason they didn't age norm this year was because they couldn't. FxAT was a new test where kids were normed not against the whole country as in previous CoGATs, but against FFX county 2nd graders. There simply weren't the statistics to age norm against this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The age norming could be a factor in why some kids got in with a FAT of 84% and others were denied at 91%.

huh? so you mean the committee took age into account even without age norming? seems to prove point of PP about how not age norming FxAT shouldn't be a show-stopper. Remember the people evaluating the files for AAP aren't idiots, they're educators, many of whom probably know a lot more about spotting giftedness than most of the posters here. The test is not the only thing they're looking at. Any one thing won't disqualify a student, it's the information taken as a whole. Do some kids slip through the cracks, I think that's the nation of any evaluation system, but you do have the right to appeal.

I'm not trying to make light of this, but truly in an absolute worst case scenario a child doesn't get into AAP their life is not over, their chances for success are not dashed, they likely won't even fall behind their peers in any sort of lasting way by being in general ed in elementary school. In fact, in the case of a young kid they may even benefit from being at the top of their class. I think this is the main problem with the lowered standards to get into AAP. If it were a smaller percentage who were truly gifted, you wouldn't have so many wannabes whining about age norming.

Wow, tens of years of scientific research thrown away in one short sentence! I hope that you consider publishing your findings about age and the identification of giftedness, it will definitely cause a stir among scholars worldwide! And while you're at it, please share your credentials - I am sure that they must be not only relevant but very impressive too, to enable you to make such proclamations without any hesitation or hint of self-doubt. Ah, the confidence of ignorance...

I didn't say age norming didn't matter, obviously it gives you the best apples to apples comparison. What I mean is, the kids who really stand out, really stand out, and if that is missed in one test, it will come out in other things. The NNAT is still age-normed, I believe. I think it would be interesting to see how many instances there were of kids who were missed because of no age-norming on one test, who NEEDED the program and didn't get in eventually. (Like the next year when they might better keep up with the class). This isn't TJ where there's a limit of kids they let into the program. AAP is an "expand to take as many as fit the profile" (and several who don't, in my opinion) sort of thing.

And I have actually researched this issue quite significantly. Was the previous CoGAT better because it set the bar so low it let many non-qualified into the pool. These test-makers and the schools that administer them are fallible, you know. Read the problems Pearson is having in NYC.

You are contradicting your earlier statements. The previous CoGAT did not set any bar anywhere. It was providing a FAIR comparison of students in that competition, and that competition alone. And this is the SOLE purpose of having that test. This information was then complemented by other evidence to help the committee make an educated decision. Currently the committee makes a decision based on numbers that are NOT directly comparable and God knows what else. Fairfax seriously botched the process this year.

[Anonymous]

So on orientations I went to, there were really no surprises about who was there. I thought all the kids belonged and were not a surprise, at least the majority that I know from being very active in the school, etc. I was surprised more by who wasn't there...I thought more kids would have been accepted, etc who are exceptionally bright. So the fault of this year's FAT (in my opinion which is not very informed etc) is that the pool was smaller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So on orientations I went to, there were really no surprises about who was there. I thought all the kids belonged and were not a surprise, at least the majority that I know from being very active in the school, etc. I was surprised more by who wasn't there...I thought more kids would have been accepted, etc who are exceptionally bright. So the fault of this year's FAT (in my opinion which is not very informed etc) is that the pool was smaller.

So, out of curiosity, how many orientations did you go to? Aren't we supposed to attend just one per child (and that's assuming that they made it into the program)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So on orientations I went to, there were really no surprises about who was there. I thought all the kids belonged and were not a surprise, at least the majority that I know from being very active in the school, etc. I was surprised more by who wasn't there...I thought more kids would have been accepted, etc who are exceptionally bright. So the fault of this year's FAT (in my opinion which is not very informed etc) is that the pool was smaller.

Not all the accepted kids and parents attended orientation. For instance, several friends of DC who were accepted have older siblings already in AAP. Thus, the families did not feel the need to attend and weren't there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So on orientations I went to, there were really no surprises about who was there. I thought all the kids belonged and were not a surprise, at least the majority that I know from being very active in the school, etc. I was surprised more by who wasn't there...I thought more kids would have been accepted, etc who are exceptionally bright. So the fault of this year's FAT (in my opinion which is not very informed etc) is that the pool was smaller.

So, out of curiosity, how many orientations did you go to? Aren't we supposed to attend just one per child (and that's assuming that they made it into the program)?

There's the center and LLIV if your school has LLIV.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to interrupt orientations, just a brief digression, promise. To PP who wrote: "You are contradicting your earlier statements. The previous CoGAT did not set any bar anywhere. It was providing a FAIR comparison of students in that competition, and that competition alone. And this is the SOLE purpose of having that test. This information was then complemented by other evidence to help the committee make an educated decision. Currently the committee makes a decision based on numbers that are NOT directly comparable and God knows what else. Fairfax seriously botched the process this year."


You misunderstand me, and your reference to a screening test as a competition is a little frightening, but telling in how you view this. A competition implies someone "wins," ergo someone loses. I always thought AAP was a curriculum for gifted and some advanced learners whoever and how many they are.

If FCPS had viewed the CogAT as fair and telling them what they needed to know, there would have been no reason to order up a customized test for Fairfax County this year. You need to do some research, which you could start on the FCPS website. Fairfax didn't botch the process -- with AAP kids tripling over the past decade or so they're just trying to get back to an evaluation process that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The age norming could be a factor in ehy some kids got in with a FAT of 84% and others were denied at 91%.

GBRS was probably the reason why some with 84 got in while others at 91 did not.

The reason why there is no age norming is there is not enough empirical data on the test to normalize....this was the first time it was used. If you are looking for trends in kids born in August, you need a larger sample. It will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The age norming could be a factor in ehy some kids got in with a FAT of 84% and others were denied at 91%.

GBRS was probably the reason why some with 84 got in while others at 91 did not.

The reason why there is no age norming is there is not enough empirical data on the test to normalize....this was the first time it was used. If you are looking for trends in kids born in August, you need a larger sample. It will happen.

+1

[Anonymous]

There is no FCPS conspiracy. The county is trying to do the best they can. Every time they come up with a solution, people try to game it. THe FXAT is the direct result of people prepping for the CogAT, rendering the results unreliable -- some prepped, inflating the scores, so all have to be discounted.

The reason why FXAT is not age normalized is they need more than one year of data to age normalize. They have 12K kids taking the test....so 1k per birth month.

[Anonymous]

I don't see why they couldn't age norm it. My understanding is the age norming (for the national CogAT) means that your child's score is ranked (in terms of percentile) against only those kids whose birthdays fall within the period one month prior to, and one month after, your kid's birthday. What's so hard about that?