Cogat and NNAt 2021 Scores Sharing thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually pool being with kids who scored 140 plus will work better and will be more effective and efficient.
Referral is always there for parents who still are interested in AAP.

Except it's not. The referral deadline was Dec. 15th and we are still waiting for FCPS to announce that they've altered the pool to limit it for some kids and widen it for others. Too late for a parent not following this site basically to know they had to refer a kid with a 138.

No need to pay attention to DCUM if you follow your AART and school announcements. We’ve been told repeatedly that those not in the pool will need to parent-refer.

How would people even realize their children aren't in the pool though? They would have to know someone else whose child is and blabbed about it.

I think the AARTs tell everyone to just submit the referral if they’re interested in AAP, since some people don’t even get the scores until after the deadline. But yes, some people might think their child is in-pool with a >132 score if they don’t realize that the letters were already sent.

Yep, this is exactly what they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are limiting the pool to make it easier for committee to review thousands of files. Many kids in high SES schools have been scored by above 132 and hence it’s a good idea to limit the pool to top 5 to 10%.
Anyone who feels their child needs AAP can refer. Why bother about the pool?

Because then all they're doing is excluding kids who scored 132+ with no test prep and uninvolved or uninformed parents.

But they’re capturing more kids with uninformed parents at lower SES schools (where the uninformed parents are statistically more likely to be). So the net result is more smart kids identified.

What are you talking about? How could anyone know whether decreasing necessary scores at some schools and increasing them elsewhere means more kids are being screened? None of us have any idea what total pool size is this year and how it compares to prior years.

Read the FCPS materials. This is exactly why they did the pilot and why the pilot was expanded to include all schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does no email mean your child is not in the pool? Do you get an email regardless of the decision?

COGAT-138
NNAT -125

Haha, nice try.

I am not sure what this mean? We are new to the system and it’s a legitimate question.

No email means you are not in the pool. You would have needed to parent refer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does no email mean your child is not in the pool? Do you get an email regardless of the decision?

COGAT-138
NNAT -125

Haha, nice try.

I am not sure what this mean? We are new to the system and it’s a legitimate question.

No email means you are not in the pool. You would have needed to parent refer.

But know your child's scores are quite good. Hopefully you did refer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are limiting the pool to make it easier for committee to review thousands of files. Many kids in high SES schools have been scored by above 132 and hence it’s a good idea to limit the pool to top 5 to 10%.
Anyone who feels their child needs AAP can refer. Why bother about the pool?

Because then all they're doing is excluding kids who scored 132+ with no test prep and uninvolved or uninformed parents.

But they’re capturing more kids with uninformed parents at lower SES schools (where the uninformed parents are statistically more likely to be). So the net result is more smart kids identified.

What are you talking about? How could anyone know whether decreasing necessary scores at some schools and increasing them elsewhere means more kids are being screened? None of us have any idea what total pool size is this year and how it compares to prior years.

Read the FCPS materials. This is exactly why they did the pilot and why the pilot was expanded to include all schools.

This is absolutely not why they did the pilot or expanded it. They did the pilot to bump up the number of some types of students in the pool, not increase overall pool size.

[Anonymous]

When was the pilot done? Was it done in some specific schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are limiting the pool to make it easier for committee to review thousands of files. Many kids in high SES schools have been scored by above 132 and hence it’s a good idea to limit the pool to top 5 to 10%.
Anyone who feels their child needs AAP can refer. Why bother about the pool?

Because then all they're doing is excluding kids who scored 132+ with no test prep and uninvolved or uninformed parents.

But they’re capturing more kids with uninformed parents at lower SES schools (where the uninformed parents are statistically more likely to be). So the net result is more smart kids identified.

No one has an evidence they actually included kids lower than 132 even at the low SES schools. At even middle level SES schools, they raised the pool to above 132. However even the high SES schools have some portion of FARMs and ELL (great falls even has 3% FARM). At those schools last year a talented kid who was FARM, ELL, or URM that scored greater than 132 would be in pool and automatically considered, even if their parents are uninvolved or uninformed about AAP. This year that same kid isn't in pool and doesn't get parent referred, so they don't get considered. Meanwhile their peers with parents who have been prepping and otherwise pushing the kid to make AAP will parent refer and be considered. Great job achieving equity! Now maybe you believe like some on the other thread that those kids are unicorns (which is a gross statement) or that they'll still have a high peer group at a high SES school. It doesn't negate the fact the new system punishes kids who have uninformed or uninvolved parents. This is also an issue at average SES schools where people have reported also having previously in pool scores no longer being in pool.

If they're missing some of those kids at some schools and considering more kids at some schools, is the system actually more helpful to those kids?

None of this negates that the changes approved last year specifically included a safety net to ensure no child was harmed by the changes. This year the safety net has been removed with no acknowledgement or vote by the board. They have data from past years, they could have run an analysis to determine the net effects at each school and the board should have to be made aware of that and approve the change knowing they're picking some kids over others.

[Anonymous]

PP you are a very strong supporter of pulling up the FARMs kids and this is a good cause.
What have you done personally to help such kids? Why don’t you start with yourself first and then preach the same to others with your actions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are limiting the pool to make it easier for committee to review thousands of files. Many kids in high SES schools have been scored by above 132 and hence it’s a good idea to limit the pool to top 5 to 10%.
Anyone who feels their child needs AAP can refer. Why bother about the pool?

Because then all they're doing is excluding kids who scored 132+ with no test prep and uninvolved or uninformed parents.

But they’re capturing more kids with uninformed parents at lower SES schools (where the uninformed parents are statistically more likely to be). So the net result is more smart kids identified.

No one has an evidence they actually included kids lower than 132 even at the low SES schools. At even middle level SES schools, they raised the pool to above 132. However even the high SES schools have some portion of FARMs and ELL (great falls even has 3% FARM). At those schools last year a talented kid who was FARM, ELL, or URM that scored greater than 132 would be in pool and automatically considered, even if their parents are uninvolved or uninformed about AAP. This year that same kid isn't in pool and doesn't get parent referred, so they don't get considered. Meanwhile their peers with parents who have been prepping and otherwise pushing the kid to make AAP will parent refer and be considered. Great job achieving equity! Now maybe you believe like some on the other thread that those kids are unicorns (which is a gross statement) or that they'll still have a high peer group at a high SES school. It doesn't negate the fact the new system punishes kids who have uninformed or uninvolved parents. This is also an issue at average SES schools where people have reported also having previously in pool scores no longer being in pool.

If they're missing some of those kids at some schools and considering more kids at some schools, is the system actually more helpful to those kids?

None of this negates that the changes approved last year specifically included a safety net to ensure no child was harmed by the changes. This year the safety net has been removed with no acknowledgement or vote by the board. They have data from past years, they could have run an analysis to determine the net effects at each school and the board should have to be made aware of that and approve the change knowing they're picking some kids over others.

You assume that huge numbers of families in non-Title I schools will not parent refer at scores between 132 and 140 and therefore fall through the cracks. You also assume that this number will be so large as to offset the increase in referrals at Title I schools (as demonstrated in the pilot) due to lower in-pool cut-offs. I dispute those assumptions. Only time will tell who is correct.

[Anonymous]

I am assuming that the Gen Ed programs at lower FARMs rate schools is probably a good deal better then the Gen Ed program at a high FARMs rate school. The kids from higher SES families are more likely to have prepared their kids for school by reading to them, sending them to a good preschool, and doing activities that teaches academics in fun ways.

Kids from a school where the in-pool bar is 140 or higher are going to have more kids that are working at or above grade level by a bit in the Gen Ed classroom and that will mean that they have peers in their Gen Ed classroom. I wold assume that there are fewer kids in those classes that are below grade level.

Many people on this board have argued that part of the AAP issue is having a cohort and not wanting their kid to be the only one in the advanced reading group. The new system should lead to more kids being in that higher reading group and the kids who are more advanced being in LLIV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am assuming that the Gen Ed programs at lower FARMs rate schools is probably a good deal better then the Gen Ed program at a high FARMs rate school. The kids from higher SES families are more likely to have prepared their kids for school by reading to them, sending them to a good preschool, and doing activities that teaches academics in fun ways.

Kids from a school where the in-pool bar is 140 or higher are going to have more kids that are working at or above grade level by a bit in the Gen Ed classroom and that will mean that they have peers in their Gen Ed classroom. I wold assume that there are fewer kids in those classes that are below grade level.

Many people on this board have argued that part of the AAP issue is having a cohort and not wanting their kid to be the only one in the advanced reading group. The new system should lead to more kids being in that higher reading group and the kids who are more advanced being in LLIV.

I agreed in hig SES schools, only kids who really really need AAP should be in Level IV. That’s why the 140 plus cutoff will work better in these schools. This cut off also weeds off test prepped kids, since test prepping can’t increase the score from 130 to 150. Most of the test prepped kids who are bright and hard working score on the range of 120 to 140. Strong 140 plus needs more potential than test prepping.

[Anonymous]

Just saw the CogAT report (paper came in mail) says:

Norms: Fall 2017

Is it indicating the norm/cut off they use for this year? DC is in 2nd grade.

[Anonymous]

Why does it say norms: fall 2017?
If it was for this year it would have been fall 2021.

[Anonymous]

I believe the norms means how they score the percentile rankings, eg which score is the 99th percentile for age, it doesn’t have to do with cut-offs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does it say norms: fall 2017?
If it was for this year it would have been fall 2021.

I know! It’s what’s on the top right corner of the COGAT paper report, in the same place as name/school/teacher and stuff.

If you had the paper report, check it out. Mine stars so. So I was wondering why and whether it has anything to do what normalization rule used for this year.