Ugh. DD thought CogAT was hard.

[Anonymous]

Means nothing. Kids that age are generally not reliable reporters. And don't worry about her birthday; the test is age normed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A GT program isn't an "option". A student is either admitted or they aren't.

If AAP were a real GT program, I would agree with you. There's such a huge overlap between the abilities of the top kids in gen ed and the bottom half of AAP that it's hardly surprising for parents of kids in that ability group to want their kids in AAP. It's absurd to want your bright child in a gifted program. It's not absurd to want your bright child in the somewhat inconsistently and arbitrarily selected bright child program that is AAP.

This. I’m OP and if it were a real GT program my son would still be in it but my daughter would very likely not and I’d be more than content with that. In fact, that would be my preference for it to be the old school GT program it was when I was a kid even though that would almost definitely mean one kid in, one out. Because DD doesn’t need AAP like my DS needs a gifted program. But as it stands, I know my DD could do very well in AAP. She is the type of kid that will be fine anywhere so I’m not worried about her not being in. I just figured she would be and would like for that to be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A GT program isn't an "option". A student is either admitted or they aren't.

If AAP were a real GT program, I would agree with you. There's such a huge overlap between the abilities of the top kids in gen ed and the bottom half of AAP that it's hardly surprising for parents of kids in that ability group to want their kids in AAP. It's absurd to want your bright child in a gifted program. It's not absurd to want your bright child in the somewhat inconsistently and arbitrarily selected bright child program that is AAP.

This. I’m OP and if it were a real GT program my son would still be in it but my daughter would very likely not and I’d be more than content with that. In fact, that would be my preference for it to be the old school GT program it was when I was a kid even though that would almost definitely mean one kid in, one out. Because DD doesn’t need AAP like my DS needs a gifted program. But as it stands, I know my DD could do very well in AAP. She is the type of kid that will be fine anywhere so I’m not worried about her not being in. I just figured she would be and would like for that to be the case.

I believe it is normal if one kid is in another can get in as CogAT is ability test not the achievement test and most siblings score similar unless one has learning disability.
Besides requirement to be considered for AAP is 132 and above in atleast one subtest not the SAS score.
Just because DD thought it was hard doesn't mean DD didn't do good on it so, she probably did fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I believe it is normal if one kid is in another can get in as CogAT is ability test not the achievement test and most siblings score similar unless one has learning disability.
Besides requirement to be considered for AAP is 132 and above in atleast one subtest not the SAS score.
Just because DD thought it was hard doesn't mean DD didn't do good on it so, she probably did fine.

This is incorrect. The only requirement to be considered for AAP is that either the child needs an in-pool score or the parents need to fill out a referral. Anyone can refer their children, and all referred children must be considered for AAP.

Also, while last year the in-pool benchmark used any sub score of 132 or higher, the previous 3 years all required a composite of 132 or higher. You can't assume it will be based on a single sub score again this year, since they will select a cutoff based on how high the scores are on a county-wide basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I believe it is normal if one kid is in another can get in as CogAT is ability test not the achievement test and most siblings score similar unless one has learning disability.
Besides requirement to be considered for AAP is 132 and above in atleast one subtest not the SAS score.
Just because DD thought it was hard doesn't mean DD didn't do good on it so, she probably did fine.

This is incorrect. The only requirement to be considered for AAP is that either the child needs an in-pool score or the parents need to fill out a referral. Anyone can refer their children, and all referred children must be considered for AAP.

Also, while last year the in-pool benchmark used any sub score of 132 or higher, the previous 3 years all required a composite of 132 or higher. You can't assume it will be based on a single sub score again this year, since they will select a cutoff based on how high the scores are on a county-wide basis.

Thank you for clarifying that, I was only referring to automatic in-pool consideration. according to FCAG.org which states "If one or more of the test scores equal or exceed the cutoff being used that year for that test, these students are automatically evaluated for possible admission to the GT Center program starting in third grade." The requirement for the in-pool is equal or exceed cutoff of one or more not the composite.

[Anonymous]

What was her performance on the NNAT? She can get in-pool via that also.

Both of my kids oddly LOVED taking these tests. They both thought they aced the NNAT--thought they got everything right--but one got 118 and the other 125. They were less sure about the Cogat and one was right at 131 on both M&V (got in via parent referral) and the other was 141 (got in via automatic pool). Both have done well in AAP. Kids aren't the best judge of their performance on these tests. So wait and see but play down AAP as the best option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I believe it is normal if one kid is in another can get in as CogAT is ability test not the achievement test and most siblings score similar unless one has learning disability.
Besides requirement to be considered for AAP is 132 and above in atleast one subtest not the SAS score.
Just because DD thought it was hard doesn't mean DD didn't do good on it so, she probably did fine.

This is incorrect. The only requirement to be considered for AAP is that either the child needs an in-pool score or the parents need to fill out a referral. Anyone can refer their children, and all referred children must be considered for AAP.

Also, while last year the in-pool benchmark used any sub score of 132 or higher, the previous 3 years all required a composite of 132 or higher. You can't assume it will be based on a single sub score again this year, since they will select a cutoff based on how high the scores are on a county-wide basis.

Thank you for clarifying that, I was only referring to automatic in-pool consideration. according to FCAG.org which states "If one or more of the test scores equal or exceed the cutoff being used that year for that test, these students are automatically evaluated for possible admission to the GT Center program starting in third grade." The requirement for the in-pool is equal or exceed cutoff of one or more not the composite.

"One or more test scores" = Either NNAT or CogAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I believe it is normal if one kid is in another can get in as CogAT is ability test not the achievement test and most siblings score similar unless one has learning disability.
Besides requirement to be considered for AAP is 132 and above in atleast one subtest not the SAS score.
Just because DD thought it was hard doesn't mean DD didn't do good on it so, she probably did fine.

This is incorrect. The only requirement to be considered for AAP is that either the child needs an in-pool score or the parents need to fill out a referral. Anyone can refer their children, and all referred children must be considered for AAP.

Also, while last year the in-pool benchmark used any sub score of 132 or higher, the previous 3 years all required a composite of 132 or higher. You can't assume it will be based on a single sub score again this year, since they will select a cutoff based on how high the scores are on a county-wide basis.

Thank you for clarifying that, I was only referring to automatic in-pool consideration. according to FCAG.org which states "If one or more of the test scores equal or exceed the cutoff being used that year for that test, these students are automatically evaluated for possible admission to the GT Center program starting in third grade." The requirement for the in-pool is equal or exceed cutoff of one or more not the composite.

"One or more test scores" = Either NNAT or CogAT

"Now, students are selected for a larger automatic screening pool based on minimum scores with respect to each subtest within the CogAT or the Naglieri overall score. The specific tests and scores required on those tests changes regularly." http://www.fcag.org/gtfcps.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was her performance on the NNAT? She can get in-pool via that also.

Both of my kids oddly LOVED taking these tests. They both thought they aced the NNAT--thought they got everything right--but one got 118 and the other 125. They were less sure about the Cogat and one was right at 131 on both M&V (got in via parent referral) and the other was 141 (got in via automatic pool). Both have done well in AAP. Kids aren't the best judge of their performance on these tests. So wait and see but play down AAP as the best option.

Wow, creepy. Op here and if I remember correctly, my kids got the same exact scores as yours on NNAT. DD with the 118. DS thought the CogAT was easy and got (I think) a 147. He said he “probably got a perfect score except there were two pictures that I didn’t know exactly what they were.” I didn’t press DD for details of what was hard because I was trying to be easy breezy, “that’s okay, the CogAT doesn’t really matter anyway and it isn’t like other tests—you aren’t supposed to know all of the answers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Now, students are selected for a larger automatic screening pool based on minimum scores with respect to each subtest within the CogAT or the Naglieri overall score. The specific tests and scores required on those tests changes regularly." http://www.fcag.org/gtfcps.html

They change their benchmarks on a yearly basis, though. So, no one knows whether this year will use subtest scores or just the composite. By my understanding, around 8 years ago, they used any subtest score > 130. Then they switched to composite > 130. Then it was composite > 132. Just last year, they switched from composite > 132 to any subtest score > 132, or was it 130?. They want to capture about 10% of the kids in the pool, so they'll adjust the cutoff to do so. Until they officially release the pool benchmarks, I wouldn't assume anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Now, students are selected for a larger automatic screening pool based on minimum scores with respect to each subtest within the CogAT or the Naglieri overall score. The specific tests and scores required on those tests changes regularly." http://www.fcag.org/gtfcps.html

They change their benchmarks on a yearly basis, though. So, no one knows whether this year will use subtest scores or just the composite. By my understanding, around 8 years ago, they used any subtest score > 130. Then they switched to composite > 130. Then it was composite > 132. Just last year, they switched from composite > 132 to any subtest score > 132, or was it 130?. They want to capture about 10% of the kids in the pool, so they'll adjust the cutoff to do so. Until they officially release the pool benchmarks, I wouldn't assume anything.

one of the reason why they changed to 132 from 130 is because the standard deviation changed from 15 to 16, they are basically same score but calculated differently. but yes, I do agree they do change the requirement. Where can you find the pool benchmarks used in previous years? As far as I know it has always been subtests for CogAT since 2010, combined for NNAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Now, students are selected for a larger automatic screening pool based on minimum scores with respect to each subtest within the CogAT or the Naglieri overall score. The specific tests and scores required on those tests changes regularly." http://www.fcag.org/gtfcps.html

They change their benchmarks on a yearly basis, though. So, no one knows whether this year will use subtest scores or just the composite. By my understanding, around 8 years ago, they used any subtest score > 130. Then they switched to composite > 130. Then it was composite > 132. Just last year, they switched from composite > 132 to any subtest score > 132, or was it 130?. They want to capture about 10% of the kids in the pool, so they'll adjust the cutoff to do so. Until they officially release the pool benchmarks, I wouldn't assume anything.

one of the reason why they changed to 132 from 130 is because the standard deviation changed from 15 to 16, they are basically same score but calculated differently. but yes, I do agree they do change the requirement. Where can you find the pool benchmarks used in previous years? As far as I know it has always been subtests for CogAT since 2010, combined for NNAT.

Nevermind, guess they post it on aap site by mid Jan. Since I did not follow the requirements for past few years, I guess I am wrong to assume that it has always been subtests although FCAG site lists as such.

[Anonymous]

The AART cited the 132 cutoff as the baseline for the past bunch of years. While she didn’t say anything definitive it sounded like she though 132 was going to be the cut off this year. But that is speculation on my part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child will be fine if they don't get into AAP. Deep breaths

I never said she wouldn’t be fine. But given the choice, she and DH and I would all prefer that she was in.

Striver Mommy should prepare herself to be sad...

DP. All three of my kids are in AAP and I happily wear the "striver mommy" badge. I try hard to make sure my kids are successful in life. I work hard everyday to expose them to as much as possible, and I'm pretty sure those things helped them get into AAP. OP, don't fall for the "striver mommy" as an insult ridiculousness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child will be fine if they don't get into AAP. Deep breaths

I never said she wouldn’t be fine. But given the choice, she and DH and I would all prefer that she was in.

Striver Mommy should prepare herself to be sad...

I don't get why people think that it is bad that parents want their kids to have options.

It is bad to be all butthurt if your kid doesn't make the cut and thus doesn't have options. Don't waste your time on Anger or Bargaining ("maybe if I get Larla tested independently and badger the school system they'll let her be in AAP") -- move on to Acceptance!

Getting independent testing and appealing is a part of the official process. It's not badgering. If you don't want to appeal, don't appeal. OP is entitled to decide how she's going to parent, even if that decision might water down AAP. Her job is to look out for her kid, not everyone else's.