Cogat scoring question

[Anonymous]

Just started to read these forums - not sure if this was covered in the past. How does a child get a composite score that is higher than each battery score? Also, if that is possible - which I did see - how is it that the county made the cut off a composite cut off rather than an individual battery cut off - especially given the test was out of 160 this year instead of 150? (ie making it easier to get past the cut off despite a possibly easier test this year) Seems like AAP is getting less and less Advanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Seems like AAP is getting less and less Advanced.

[list]Interesting. My fifth grader said the exact same thing to me yesterday. Fairfax County? Don't see a problem here?

[Anonymous]

"Seems like AAP is getting less and less Advanced."

true that. same at TJ. Done on purpose methinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just started to read these forums - not sure if this was covered in the past.

Yes, it was. Read here:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/215608.page#2144734

[Anonymous]

Thanks for pp's thread, but I didn't find the answer to the initial question there.

Did find this:

Last night AAPAC was told that the central screening committee will look at all four CogAT scores -- the three subtests and the composite. The CogAT composite is simply used for the pool. The NNAT2 scores will also be looked at as well as the GBRS with commentary, and of course the work sample(s). It was re-emphasized at last night's meeting that center-eligibility is not simply based on a single test score.

If the above is true why did so many kids with low NNAT's from 1st grade and Cogat's on the bubble still get in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for pp's thread, but I didn't find the answer to the initial question there.

Did find this:

Last night AAPAC was told that the central screening committee will look at all four CogAT scores -- the three subtests and the composite. The CogAT composite is simply used for the pool. The NNAT2 scores will also be looked at as well as the GBRS with commentary, and of course the work sample(s). It was re-emphasized at last night's meeting that center-eligibility is not simply based on a single test score.

If the above is true why did so many kids with low NNAT's from 1st grade and Cogat's on the bubble still get in?

in the first round? or on appeal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for pp's thread, but I didn't find the answer to the initial question there.

Did find this:

Last night AAPAC was told that the central screening committee will look at all four CogAT scores -- the three subtests and the composite. The CogAT composite is simply used for the pool. The NNAT2 scores will also be looked at as well as the GBRS with commentary, and of course the work sample(s). It was re-emphasized at last night's meeting that center-eligibility is not simply based on a single test score.

If the above is true why did so many kids with low NNAT's from 1st grade and Cogat's on the bubble still get in?

Where did you see statistics about the number of low NNAT2s from 1st grade and CogATs on the bubble getting in? And what about the GBRS with Commentary? I have not seen statistics from this year's screening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for pp's thread, but I didn't find the answer to the initial question there.

Did find this:

Last night AAPAC was told that the central screening committee will look at all four CogAT scores -- the three subtests and the composite. The CogAT composite is simply used for the pool. The NNAT2 scores will also be looked at as well as the GBRS with commentary, and of course the work sample(s). It was re-emphasized at last night's meeting that center-eligibility is not simply based on a single test score.

If the above is true why did so many kids with low NNAT's from 1st grade and Cogat's on the bubble still get in?

[list]It just says they will "look" at all of the scores it doesn't say how the material will be weighted. The truth is that the selection is truly subjective when it comes to the larger percentage of the "pool" - the kids who are borderline. At this point it comes down to how your teacher views your child, if your parents are liked and if the AAP resource teacher finds (or does not find) a connection with you and/or your child. This is a major issue with the selection process. IMO, center placement should be based on high testing scores and forget all of the mumbo jumbo. This way the kids who are "truly in need of" additional educational material will get it and the base schools will be forced to provide a higher level of education. Accepting all of these "in the middle" kids into the AAP program is screwing with the quality of education provided in the non-center program schools and the center program schools. Resulting in the obsession of so many parents clamoring to get their mediocre kids into an advanced program because, if they pitch a big enough fit, they can. Using only "high" test scores is truly the best indicator of "need" for expanded educational material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for pp's thread, but I didn't find the answer to the initial question there.

Did find this:

Last night AAPAC was told that the central screening committee will look at all four CogAT scores -- the three subtests and the composite. The CogAT composite is simply used for the pool. The NNAT2 scores will also be looked at as well as the GBRS with commentary, and of course the work sample(s). It was re-emphasized at last night's meeting that center-eligibility is not simply based on a single test score.

If the above is true why did so many kids with low NNAT's from 1st grade and Cogat's on the bubble still get in?

[list]It just says they will "look" at all of the scores it doesn't say how the material will be weighted. The truth is that the selection is truly subjective when it comes to the larger percentage of the "pool" - the kids who are borderline. At this point it comes down to how your teacher views your child, if your parents are liked and if the AAP resource teacher finds (or does not find) a connection with you and/or your child. This is a major issue with the selection process. IMO, center placement should be based on high testing scores and forget all of the mumbo jumbo. This way the kids who are "truly in need of" additional educational material will get it and the base schools will be forced to provide a higher level of education. Accepting all of these "in the middle" kids into the AAP program is screwing with the quality of education provided in the non-center program schools and the center program schools. Resulting in the obsession of so many parents clamoring to get their mediocre kids into an advanced program because, if they pitch a big enough fit, they can. Using only "high" test scores is truly the best indicator of "need" for expanded educational material.

sorry but I have to disagree. I'd go the other way. It is called "advanced" academic program. The student should have to demonstrate advanced academic abilties/performance- the key word being demonstrate. Test scores alone prove diddly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where did you see statistics about the number of low NNAT2s from 1st grade and CogATs on the bubble getting in? And what about the GBRS with Commentary? I have not seen statistics from this year's screening.

purely by observation - not scientific
GBRS is fairly subjective?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where did you see statistics about the number of low NNAT2s from 1st grade and CogATs on the bubble getting in? And what about the GBRS with Commentary? I have not seen statistics from this year's screening.

purely by observation - not scientific
GBRS is fairly subjective?

What observations are you using? Simply by posts here?

[Anonymous]

composite score is scaled based on age but subject score is not. If you child is younger among the same grade (for examble born on Sep) then there is possibility the composite score will be higher than the subject score. for majority of kids, the composite should not be higher than subject score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just started to read these forums - not sure if this was covered in the past. How does a child get a composite score that is higher than each battery score? Also, if that is possible - which I did see - how is it that the county made the cut off a composite cut off rather than an individual battery cut off - especially given the test was out of 160 this year instead of 150? (ie making it easier to get past the cut off despite a possibly easier test this year) Seems like AAP is getting less and less Advanced.

Also it is not AAP getting less and less advanced. It is your logic screwed. CogAt has 3 subject scores. The probablity of average of 3 subject scores meet cut off is much lower than any of one subject score meet cut off. That's way county used to limit in pool student. Think about when you are in college, it is much easier to get A in single subject then get A in overall GPA.

Yes there are senarios where composite higher than individual battery when scaled by age. But that will be very few cases which if the child is much younger than same group.

[Anonymous]

Just to weigh in on this discussion of "demonstration of abilities" has to take in the age of those screened. The reason (or at least what I heard) that FCPS screens all of its students at this age is because research demonstrates that if not all of the students are screened (but rather selected to be screened by teachers) the younger gifted kids are routinely not screened. I hope I'm making sense. For example, In my daughter's first grade class, the 2 students selected for the big award this year (excellence, etc) were the oldest boy and oldest girl in the class ---the boy turned 7 in the summer preceding 1st grade (red-shirted) and the girl turned 7 early Fall. The age differential really is big at this age (in so many ways) and the younger kids are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to the GBRS since a lot of cognitive processes are still developing.

[Anonymous]

The scores are standardized scores following a normal distribution. It is set so a score of 100 means the child was at the 50th percentile. The test has a standard deviation of 16...so a score at 1SD (116) would be at the 84th percentile. 2SD (132) would be at the 98th percentile. 3SD (148) would be 99.9th percentile. The increase in the top score from 150 to 160 doesn't mean that 130 is less of a score, it just means the test can now differentiate between the kids that are scoring so high they were hitting the ceiling on the former test. I'm not sure how they find the composite, I think it is the average of the three subtests. So a child with three very similar scores could have a composite that is at a higher percentile than each individual score was.