It's official: CogAT scores are not age-adjusted this year!!!

[Anonymous]

Confirmed directly by FCPS AAP office...

[Anonymous]

Did you ask how they came up with the VQN?

[Anonymous]

Does it really matter? There are kids who are younger pass the cut-off...

[Anonymous]

Do they have an explanation?

[Anonymous]

Did you ask what data provided by the district that the committee will look at, such as ages, raw scores, etc?

[Anonymous]

Call AAP office at [phone] if you have further questions.

[Anonymous]

WHo cares? This is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WHo cares? This is irrelevant.

I believe FCPS should care as I am quite certain they are going to face a major class action against them.

Simply put the lack of age-adjusting (I am shocked to hear that this is the case!) is a blatant age discrimination: the youngest kids in 2nd grade are screwed in favor of older kids.
Sure, you have the alternative to go for the WISC, but:
1. One should not be forced to pay for such a test just because someone at FCPS screwed up the COGAT test administration. If this year's class has, say, 13k kids, I can easily see 1/4 of them moving against FCPS asking it to pay for the test. That could end up being a $1.5 Million tab for FCPS (up to 3k kids at $500 per kid)

2. Let's say that some families decide to sue FCPS just because their borderline kids did not get into AAP and they 'had to opt for private schools in order to get the education that their kids deserved but were denied because of FCPS's age discriminative practices'. The cost per child could end up being $30k/year times four years: $120k. Let's 100 families decide to pursue and sue FCPS to recover this cost, we are looking at $12 million (plus legal fees).

One thing is certain, someone at FCPS screwed up big time and they (FCPS) will end up paying for that. If the age-discriminative COGAT test scores are allowed in the AAP review, FCPS may be opening itself up to major legal action.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if there are enough angry parents over this issue to raise enough concerns so that the school system has to respond....or if it is just a handful on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if there are enough angry parents over this issue to raise enough concerns so that the school system has to respond....or if it is just a handful on DCUM.

That's one question. The other is whether there are enough angry lawyers out there, and I suspect that the answer to this question at least is a definite yes.

[Anonymous]

I think that FCPS would respond that the score is just a peice of the file, not the determining factor...

[Anonymous]

AND, that the child's birthdate is visible to committee, so it may be taken into consideration...

[Anonymous]

I am not in fairfax county, but I have skimmed some of the multitude of threads on the topic. My child is very advanced and has a late summer birthday--so the youngest. But, we chose an independent school with individualized instruction for just this reason. This is a mess, and we do not have to deal with it.

The AAP is not a program for gifted learners. If it was, each student would be administered the WISC not a group test that is notorious for missing gifted children. AAP is merely tracking starting in third grade. Holy cow. (I hate this kind of tracking. It is so early.)

I think that is why it is acceptable to not account for age. The school district wanted the rising second graders who scored the best on these tests. It has nothing to do with age. If they wanted the most gifted second graders that would have used another test and accounted for age.

I think that if this is what the school district wants, than this is what they get. It is their rules.

It reminds me of the private school malarky. The private schools want you WPSSI results. A 99% on the WPPSI does not mean much. The test is notoriously unreliable on three and four-year-olds. You are testing how well the child tests not raw intelligence. But, that is what the private schools want. I don't think they care about intelligence. They want high scoring WPSSI kids because that is the kind of kid they want.

[Anonymous]

The thing is there are younger kids who pass the cut-off. Any evidence that there is an overwhelming number of older kids in the pool?
Agree with PP, that the child's birthdate is visible to committee, and it can be taken into consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that FCPS would respond that the score is just a peice of the file, not the determining factor...

This is a classic (and failed) defense in prior discrimination cases. (Please note, I am not responding to you personally, just to the argument).
It's a huge mess that they have created and I see no easy way out of it.