Cogat and NNAt 2021 Scores Sharing thread

[Anonymous]

Thanks PP who keeps compiling this reported data. Very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should publish each school's threshold. It is the only way parents can be confident there is no error in computing their kid's pool status.

You can ask them for it.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/policies-regulations-and-notices/virginia-freedom-information-act-vfoia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Falls Church Pyramid,
NNAT: 152,
COGAT: composite 141, Verbal 144, Q 132, NV131. In pool.

I’m sure DCUM isn’t a representative sample, but not seeing much evidence of pool discrepancies between higher and lower SES schools thus far.

I don't know the SES of every pyramid, but 2 schools that could be lower SES - South Lakes and West Springfield - had lower in-pool scores. Even if someone reports their score was over 140, we don't know if the cut-off could have been lower since it's the only report here from that school.

True. Just noting we haven’t seen any hard evidence of low in-pool scores thus far. Even the examples from South Lakes and West Springfield still had scores above last year’s universal cut-off of 132.

This is what surprises me. My children are at a school that would be on the lower half of SES for Fairfax, if not the lower quarter (more than 1/3 FARMS, more than 1/4 ELL). It is the sort of school I would think the board intended to increase or at least maintain the number of students considered. However there are at least 2 students who would have been in the pool last year and are not. One even had CogAT composite of 136. Yes both parents chose to refer anyway so there is no true harm to them. But what about the kid who may have scored 132 or more but has parents who don't speak English and don't know about AAP or understand these changes? The ones who assume if their child was that bright the school would tell them and automatically consider them. These changes were approved by the board with the goal of increasing the net and yet they seem to have narrowed it. Even at the higher SES schools, I hope they actually do an analysis to determine if raising the cutoff resulted in more or less URM being considered.

With no transparency, there is no way for parents to know if the school above truly had 5 or 10% score above 136 or if the school used a county norm (top 2% of the county). Is someone from the AAP office setting all of this or are the schools individually doing it? The memo posted here said the schools would, but then AAP office seems to have mailed the in pool notifications. Is anyone double checking the work? One person posted their AART said there was no pool. Was that a lie or someone who misunderstood the policy change and is applying it wrong at their schools? Is the schoolboard aware that the change to the pool process, which appears to have been made solely by Brabrand, does not include the safety net of the national norm like last year?

Someone on this board said their AART claimed AAP central actually shrunk the pool this year. Maybe it's true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should publish each school's threshold. It is the only way parents can be confident there is no error in computing their kid's pool status.

They can never post each schools threshold, if they do there will be chaos. How would you feel if your child scored 139 and still is not in pool compared to a child who score 125 and is in pool. AAP Crazy folks will start buying houses so that their kids go to title 1 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should publish each school's threshold. It is the only way parents can be confident there is no error in computing their kid's pool status.

They can never post each schools threshold, if they do there will be chaos. How would you feel if your child scored 139 and still is not in pool compared to a child who score 125 and is in pool. AAP Crazy folks will start buying houses so that their kids go to title 1 schools.

I've said before and I will say again - they can still post the criteria for determining each school's pool (percent or something). Should be one consistent county-wide criteria even if it leads to different scores at different schools. Without a full picture of all scores at a school, no one will be able to calculate the pool cut. It'd be more transparent without throwing anyone under a metaphorical bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should publish each school's threshold. It is the only way parents can be confident there is no error in computing their kid's pool status.

They can never post each schools threshold, if they do there will be chaos. How would you feel if your child scored 139 and still is not in pool compared to a child who score 125 and is in pool. AAP Crazy folks will start buying houses so that their kids go to title 1 schools.

FCPS would consider that a win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should publish each school's threshold. It is the only way parents can be confident there is no error in computing their kid's pool status.

They can never post each schools threshold, if they do there will be chaos. How would you feel if your child scored 139 and still is not in pool compared to a child who score 125 and is in pool. AAP Crazy folks will start buying houses so that their kids go to title 1 schools.

FCPS would consider that a win.

It is one way to handle SES status integration of schools...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pyramid NNAT Cogat composite Cogat Verbal Cogat Quantitative Cogat Non-Verbal In pool
Oakton 140 127 ? ? ? ?
Marshall 120 132 ? ? ? ?
? 106 138 ? ? ? ?
Herndon 142 140 ? ? ? ?
McLean 129 110 110 113 109 No
Langley 126 131 118 127 135 No
McLean ? 131 ? ? ? No
Oakton ? 131 ? ? ? No
Marshall 111 132 128 121 135 No
Edison ? 133 ? ? ? No
Lake Braddock 133 131 138 112 No
Oakton 133 136 ? ? ? No
Madison 121 137 129 135 129 No
SouthLakes 137 120 ? 125 ? Yes
WestSpringfield 128 132 122 134 127 Yes
Justice 140 139 118 141 136 Yes
Langley ? 140 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 140 124 140 135 Yes
Marshall 151 140 ? ? ? Yes
Marshall 144 140 ? ? ? Yes
FallsChurch 119 141 129 141 133 Yes
FallsChurch 152 141 144 132 131 Yes
Marshall 134 142 132 142 131 Yes
Chantilly 120 142 117 144 141 Yes
Madison 160 142 ? ? ? Yes
Madison 123 142 148 138 123 Yes
Justice ? 142 132 142 131 Yes
Marshall 154 143 ? ? ? Yes
Madison ? 143 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 145 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 152 146 135 147 131 Yes
McLean ? 146 ? ? ? Yes
Langley 137 147 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 160 152 ? ? ? Yes
Robinson 140 ? 132 115 132 Yes
Lewis
MtVernon
WestPotomac

1. Either NNAT or Cogat above 140
2. Only Cogat considered, above 140.

Different schools have different cutoffs.
1. High SES schools cut off 140
2. Low SES schools cut of 132 or 120? Not sure

1. High SES schools cut off 140. = The correct way of saying this is "Schools that have a heavier concentration of test prepped kids.

[Anonymous]

What is a test prepped kid when you are speaking about 7 or 8 year olds taking the Cogat? How many people really do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pyramid NNAT Cogat composite Cogat Verbal Cogat Quantitative Cogat Non-Verbal In pool
Oakton 140 127 ? ? ? ?
Marshall 120 132 ? ? ? ?
? 106 138 ? ? ? ?
Herndon 142 140 ? ? ? ?
McLean 129 110 110 113 109 No
Langley 126 131 118 127 135 No
McLean ? 131 ? ? ? No
Oakton ? 131 ? ? ? No
Marshall 111 132 128 121 135 No
Edison ? 133 ? ? ? No
Lake Braddock 133 131 138 112 No
Oakton 133 136 ? ? ? No
Madison 121 137 129 135 129 No
SouthLakes 137 120 ? 125 ? Yes
WestSpringfield 128 132 122 134 127 Yes
Justice 140 139 118 141 136 Yes
Langley ? 140 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 140 124 140 135 Yes
Marshall 151 140 ? ? ? Yes
Marshall 144 140 ? ? ? Yes
FallsChurch 119 141 129 141 133 Yes
FallsChurch 152 141 144 132 131 Yes
Marshall 134 142 132 142 131 Yes
Chantilly 120 142 117 144 141 Yes
Madison 160 142 ? ? ? Yes
Madison 123 142 148 138 123 Yes
Justice ? 142 132 142 131 Yes
Marshall 154 143 ? ? ? Yes
Madison ? 143 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 145 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 152 146 135 147 131 Yes
McLean ? 146 ? ? ? Yes
Langley 137 147 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 160 152 ? ? ? Yes
Robinson 140 ? 132 115 132 Yes
Lewis
MtVernon
WestPotomac

1. Either NNAT or Cogat above 140
2. Only Cogat considered, above 140.

Different schools have different cutoffs.
1. High SES schools cut off 140
2. Low SES schools cut of 132 or 120? Not sure

1. High SES schools cut off 140. = The correct way of saying this is "Schools that have a heavier concentration of test prepped kids.

Here comes the jealous mama.
Kids can be test prepped and still score below 120 or 130. If it was that easy to score 140 or more everyone on high SES schools would have been in pool and eventually in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Falls Church Pyramid,
NNAT: 152,
COGAT: composite 141, Verbal 144, Q 132, NV131. In pool.

I’m sure DCUM isn’t a representative sample, but not seeing much evidence of pool discrepancies between higher and lower SES schools thus far.

I don't know the SES of every pyramid, but 2 schools that could be lower SES - South Lakes and West Springfield - had lower in-pool scores. Even if someone reports their score was over 140, we don't know if the cut-off could have been lower since it's the only report here from that school.

True. Just noting we haven’t seen any hard evidence of low in-pool scores thus far. Even the examples from South Lakes and West Springfield still had scores above last year’s universal cut-off of 132.

This is what surprises me. My children are at a school that would be on the lower half of SES for Fairfax, if not the lower quarter (more than 1/3 FARMS, more than 1/4 ELL). It is the sort of school I would think the board intended to increase or at least maintain the number of students considered. However there are at least 2 students who would have been in the pool last year and are not. One even had CogAT composite of 136. Yes both parents chose to refer anyway so there is no true harm to them. But what about the kid who may have scored 132 or more but has parents who don't speak English and don't know about AAP or understand these changes? The ones who assume if their child was that bright the school would tell them and automatically consider them. These changes were approved by the board with the goal of increasing the net and yet they seem to have narrowed it. Even at the higher SES schools, I hope they actually do an analysis to determine if raising the cutoff resulted in more or less URM being considered.

With no transparency, there is no way for parents to know if the school above truly had 5 or 10% score above 136 or if the school used a county norm (top 2% of the county). Is someone from the AAP office setting all of this or are the schools individually doing it? The memo posted here said the schools would, but then AAP office seems to have mailed the in pool notifications. Is anyone double checking the work? One person posted their AART said there was no pool. Was that a lie or someone who misunderstood the policy change and is applying it wrong at their schools? Is the schoolboard aware that the change to the pool process, which appears to have been made solely by Brabrand, does not include the safety net of the national norm like last year?

Interesting. We’re at a Title I school. I only know one other second grader well enough to know their scores but both that child and my own scored more than 140 and were in the pool.

In the examples they gave, the use of a local norm vs the national norm (132) resulted in about 9-10 students being in pool vs 1-2 using the national norm (top 2% nationally). This would suggest they took somewhere between the top 5-10% of the grade, unless we truly have elementary schools with 500 kids in one grade (number needed for 10 kids to represent top 2% of the grade). It's possible they did use top 2% last year but someone made a mathematical error and calculated 2% of the whole school or 2% of the AAP eligible population (grades 2+). With no explanation of how the building norm is calculated, there is no way to know.

If building norm was top 2% of the school, that would really change the math to support the pilot program because in their examples because it would mean the schools that had 1-2 kids in pool before would have about 2-4 kids in pool (assuming 100-200 kids per grade, not for schools with about 100 kids/grade or less this means no benefitto using a local norm) rather than the examples of 8-12 kids but then their example of the one T1 school that had 5 kids in pool using the national norm would have less kids in pool, unless the school has 250 kids per grade. It would look even worse at higher SES schools that had double digit number of kids in pool already.

If they could determine the pool already, they can determine what the changes did. Someone, and in particular the schoolboard, should have reviewed this. The goal was to cast a bigger net. Even your school, we have no way of knowing if those are the two kids who are in pool and other kids who scored >132 weren't in pool or if the 132 number was used (or a lower number).

It's easy to say "who cares those parents will refer anyway" but that isn't equity. It requires involved parents who have the time and ability to fill out the referral. Yes, a talented kid who scored 131 but had uninvolved parents was skipped by the old system, however increasing that threshold to be a higher number so more of those kids are missed makes the system worse, not more equitable.

[Anonymous]

What about publishing the number of kids in pool from each school and how it compares to past years average?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should publish each school's threshold. It is the only way parents can be confident there is no error in computing their kid's pool status.

They can never post each schools threshold, if they do there will be chaos. How would you feel if your child scored 139 and still is not in pool compared to a child who score 125 and is in pool. AAP Crazy folks will start buying houses so that their kids go to title 1 schools.

FCPS would consider that a win.

It is one way to handle SES status integration of schools...

Ha! So true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is a test prepped kid when you are speaking about 7 or 8 year olds taking the Cogat? How many people really do that?

You would be surprised. It’s definitely a thing and certain places offer prep classes. They also sell prep workbooks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Falls Church Pyramid,
NNAT: 152,
COGAT: composite 141, Verbal 144, Q 132, NV131. In pool.

I’m sure DCUM isn’t a representative sample, but not seeing much evidence of pool discrepancies between higher and lower SES schools thus far.

I don't know the SES of every pyramid, but 2 schools that could be lower SES - South Lakes and West Springfield - had lower in-pool scores. Even if someone reports their score was over 140, we don't know if the cut-off could have been lower since it's the only report here from that school.

True. Just noting we haven’t seen any hard evidence of low in-pool scores thus far. Even the examples from South Lakes and West Springfield still had scores above last year’s universal cut-off of 132.

This is what surprises me. My children are at a school that would be on the lower half of SES for Fairfax, if not the lower quarter (more than 1/3 FARMS, more than 1/4 ELL). It is the sort of school I would think the board intended to increase or at least maintain the number of students considered. However there are at least 2 students who would have been in the pool last year and are not. One even had CogAT composite of 136. Yes both parents chose to refer anyway so there is no true harm to them. But what about the kid who may have scored 132 or more but has parents who don't speak English and don't know about AAP or understand these changes? The ones who assume if their child was that bright the school would tell them and automatically consider them. These changes were approved by the board with the goal of increasing the net and yet they seem to have narrowed it. Even at the higher SES schools, I hope they actually do an analysis to determine if raising the cutoff resulted in more or less URM being considered.

With no transparency, there is no way for parents to know if the school above truly had 5 or 10% score above 136 or if the school used a county norm (top 2% of the county). Is someone from the AAP office setting all of this or are the schools individually doing it? The memo posted here said the schools would, but then AAP office seems to have mailed the in pool notifications. Is anyone double checking the work? One person posted their AART said there was no pool. Was that a lie or someone who misunderstood the policy change and is applying it wrong at their schools? Is the schoolboard aware that the change to the pool process, which appears to have been made solely by Brabrand, does not include the safety net of the national norm like last year?

Someone on this board said their AART claimed AAP central actually shrunk the pool this year. Maybe it's true?

Probably true for wealthier schools but false for non-wealthy. If we know that some schools had 40+ kids in the pool in prior years, that would mean anywhere from 20% to 75% of their second graders depending on the school's overall size. Now let's assume FCPS decides to use the top 10% of scorers at every school as their building norm. That means the pool shrinks from 40 down to 15 in a hypothetical school with 150 kids per grade. That's a significant decrease.