AAP appeals—please post scores

[Anonymous]

I have a 2nd grader. I only know about iReady, nnat, and cogat. What is WISC and these other tests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but see these 160 NNAT scores and think that these are kids that definitely did NNAT prep to "test into AAP". It would make since that other data is weighted higher if its suspected that this isn't a true picture of the child's ability since they've been training to take the assessment. The NNAT and CogAT aren't designed to be studied for. I'm a teacher in another district who has never seen a kid with a 160 in over 10-12 years of the district giving this assessment.

Perhaps the NNAT and CogAT weren't "designed" to be studied for, but in the past, they said the same about the SAT and now that's a huge industry. Maybe it's very difficult to get a perfect score, but I'd also say that a kid who can get such a score --even prepped-- is in the top 20% of his peers, which is plenty good enough to do well in an AAP that serves up to 20%+ of the FCPS ES population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a 2nd grader. I only know about iReady, nnat, and cogat. What is WISC and these other tests?

Tests administered by psychologists. They are admissible for an AAP application or appeal, but hardly required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but see these 160 NNAT scores and think that these are kids that definitely did NNAT prep to "test into AAP". It would make since that other data is weighted higher if its suspected that this isn't a true picture of the child's ability since they've been training to take the assessment. The NNAT and CogAT aren't designed to be studied for. I'm a teacher in another district who has never seen a kid with a 160 in over 10-12 years of the district giving this assessment.

Perhaps the NNAT and CogAT weren't "designed" to be studied for, but in the past, they said the same about the SAT and now that's a huge industry. Maybe it's very difficult to get a perfect score, but I'd also say that a kid who can get such a score --even prepped-- is in the top 20% of his peers, which is plenty good enough to do well in an AAP that serves up to 20%+ of the FCPS ES population.

Give me a break. There is an "academy" that provides extensive prep for CogAT and other tests. I think reviewing a couple of tests with your child is ok, but going to CogAT school for numerous hours on weekends so that you can get a top score? Hard no. This is why these tests are being demoted in terms of their importance in the evaluation process. Just because you really, really, really want your kid in AAP does not mean that they should be in. What matters is do they need it.

I'm a very quantitative person but I am ok with how FCPS is modifying the process, given this sort of gaming of the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but see these 160 NNAT scores and think that these are kids that definitely did NNAT prep to "test into AAP". It would make since that other data is weighted higher if its suspected that this isn't a true picture of the child's ability since they've been training to take the assessment. The NNAT and CogAT aren't designed to be studied for. I'm a teacher in another district who has never seen a kid with a 160 in over 10-12 years of the district giving this assessment.

My kid scored 160 without prepping. He is a bright kid and does well at school, but I was surprised. How do you even prep for a test like that? It's not math. Plus, it's a scaled score, so someone has to get 160. It doesn't mean they got every question right. Now I'm worried the high score is going to work against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but see these 160 NNAT scores and think that these are kids that definitely did NNAT prep to "test into AAP". It would make since that other data is weighted higher if its suspected that this isn't a true picture of the child's ability since they've been training to take the assessment. The NNAT and CogAT aren't designed to be studied for. I'm a teacher in another district who has never seen a kid with a 160 in over 10-12 years of the district giving this assessment.

My kid scored 160 without prepping. He is a bright kid and does well at school, but I was surprised. How do you even prep for a test like that? It's not math. Plus, it's a scaled score, so someone has to get 160. It doesn't mean they got every question right. Now I'm worried the high score is going to work against him.

All other things being equal the CogAT/NNAT average is important, but the HOPE rating from the teacher is even more important. And as a parent you fill out everything you can to help convince the committee your kid has HOPE and GBRS traits.

People on this board are score obsessed and think they have cracked the code of what scores are "required," but having watched this board for years with 3 kids going through this process, they have no clue. The best clues we have come from the 2020 external committee report, and even that is now getting dated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but see these 160 NNAT scores and think that these are kids that definitely did NNAT prep to "test into AAP". It would make since that other data is weighted higher if its suspected that this isn't a true picture of the child's ability since they've been training to take the assessment. The NNAT and CogAT aren't designed to be studied for. I'm a teacher in another district who has never seen a kid with a 160 in over 10-12 years of the district giving this assessment.

My kid scored 160 without prepping. He is a bright kid and does well at school, but I was surprised. How do you even prep for a test like that? It's not math. Plus, it's a scaled score, so someone has to get 160. It doesn't mean they got every question right. Now I'm worried the high score is going to work against him.

High scores on the tests seem to be questioned when they don't match iReady scores or a child's performance in the classroom. I suspect that iReady's are taking on more importance, they were not included when my child was in 2nd grade, because they are something that are harder to prep for and are adaptable. So a high scoring CoGAT or NNAT kid who is scoring in the 70th percentile or 80th percentile on the iReady is likely to see the NNAT and CoGAT scores disregarded. That is what I suspect, no one has any hard information on this.

And I have known kids who score high on the CoGAT/NNAT and did not show similar performance in the classroom. The kid is smart but is not curious and not motivated in school. They tested into Algebra 1 H in 7th grade and choose Math 7H instead. They are in honors classes but don't care if they get a C or a B. The parents encourage retaking test but the kid says no and won't do the work. There are smart kids who are not motivated and whose parents are trying to motivate them but they just don't care. The kid was the same way in ES. Nice kid, not a trouble maker, just would prefer to be outside playing and goofing off with friends and has no interest in school.

There are above average intelligence kids who are super curious and motivated. They don't score in-pool but their classroom behavior, iReadys (based on what they are learning), SOLs (in third grade and beyond) who are great fits for AAP because they are curious and motivated.

There is more to fit then test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but see these 160 NNAT scores and think that these are kids that definitely did NNAT prep to "test into AAP". It would make since that other data is weighted higher if its suspected that this isn't a true picture of the child's ability since they've been training to take the assessment. The NNAT and CogAT aren't designed to be studied for. I'm a teacher in another district who has never seen a kid with a 160 in over 10-12 years of the district giving this assessment.

Perhaps the NNAT and CogAT weren't "designed" to be studied for, but in the past, they said the same about the SAT and now that's a huge industry. Maybe it's very difficult to get a perfect score, but I'd also say that a kid who can get such a score --even prepped-- is in the top 20% of his peers, which is plenty good enough to do well in an AAP that serves up to 20%+ of the FCPS ES population.

Give me a break. There is an "academy" that provides extensive prep for CogAT and other tests. I think reviewing a couple of tests with your child is ok, but going to CogAT school for numerous hours on weekends so that you can get a top score? Hard no. This is why these tests are being demoted in terms of their importance in the evaluation process. Just because you really, really, really want your kid in AAP does not mean that they should be in. What matters is do they need it.

I'm a very quantitative person but I am ok with how FCPS is modifying the process, given this sort of gaming of the system.

Okay, but are you suggesting that the people that come on here and brag about/ask for advice on how to write the parent referral, prepare work samples, get a WISC, etc. aren't just gaming the system in a different way? Same logic has to apply, you can't manipulate the parent referral process just because you really, really want your kid in AAP. I don't see how test prep and gaming parent referral are any different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but see these 160 NNAT scores and think that these are kids that definitely did NNAT prep to "test into AAP". It would make since that other data is weighted higher if its suspected that this isn't a true picture of the child's ability since they've been training to take the assessment. The NNAT and CogAT aren't designed to be studied for. I'm a teacher in another district who has never seen a kid with a 160 in over 10-12 years of the district giving this assessment.

My kid scored 160 without prepping. He is a bright kid and does well at school, but I was surprised. How do you even prep for a test like that? It's not math. Plus, it's a scaled score, so someone has to get 160. It doesn't mean they got every question right. Now I'm worried the high score is going to work against him.

High scores on the tests seem to be questioned when they don't match iReady scores or a child's performance in the classroom. I suspect that iReady's are taking on more importance, they were not included when my child was in 2nd grade, because they are something that are harder to prep for and are adaptable. So a high scoring CoGAT or NNAT kid who is scoring in the 70th percentile or 80th percentile on the iReady is likely to see the NNAT and CoGAT scores disregarded. That is what I suspect, no one has any hard information on this.

And I have known kids who score high on the CoGAT/NNAT and did not show similar performance in the classroom. The kid is smart but is not curious and not motivated in school. They tested into Algebra 1 H in 7th grade and choose Math 7H instead. They are in honors classes but don't care if they get a C or a B. The parents encourage retaking test but the kid says no and won't do the work. There are smart kids who are not motivated and whose parents are trying to motivate them but they just don't care. The kid was the same way in ES. Nice kid, not a trouble maker, just would prefer to be outside playing and goofing off with friends and has no interest in school.

There are above average intelligence kids who are super curious and motivated. They don't score in-pool but their classroom behavior, iReadys (based on what they are learning), SOLs (in third grade and beyond) who are great fits for AAP because they are curious and motivated.

There is more to fit then test scores.

The bolded was my point above. Posters on DCUM only have guesses, though there are people who show up occasionally who make pretty convincing cases that they sit on the decision committee and understand how it works.

Everyone likes to make the bold claims (NNAT 160 looks prepped! Committee won't accept!) but no one knows this. In fact the committee report in 2020 showed pretty solid acceptance numbers for high scores, but also that some very low scores (CogAT of 99 stood out to me when I first read it) get in.

And the part about classroom behavior goes with the idea that the teacher recommendation carries a lot of weight. All other things being equal a 120 CogAT will get in with a good HOPE but not get in with a bad one.

[Anonymous]

All that matters with these scores is the local norm. If you go to a school where the highest score is a 145, a 132 might be in top 10%. If you are at a school where the top scores are closer to 150ish, a 132 might not be in the top 10%.

They also take into consideration what programs are offered at your base school. If your base school has a Local Level IV and offers the Advanced Math, even if your student is scoring a 160 - your base school might be able to provide the right program. If you go to a school where they don’t offer a Local Level IV, don’t have a full time AART, and there is no peer group - the Center Based School is appropriate.

Keep in mind it’s not ‘is this student smart/gifted/challenged.’ It’s ’given this student’s capabilities is the school able to provide the right curriculum.’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All that matters with these scores is the local norm. If you go to a school where the highest score is a 145, a 132 might be in top 10%. If you are at a school where the top scores are closer to 150ish, a 132 might not be in the top 10%.

They also take into consideration what programs are offered at your base school. If your base school has a Local Level IV and offers the Advanced Math, even if your student is scoring a 160 - your base school might be able to provide the right program. If you go to a school where they don’t offer a Local Level IV, don’t have a full time AART, and there is no peer group - the Center Based School is appropriate.

Keep in mind it’s not ‘is this student smart/gifted/challenged.’ It’s ’given this student’s capabilities is the school able to provide the right curriculum.’

It's incredibly unfair. I have a child with 132s and 5 years ago that child would have automatically gotten in. Not anymore, because we are at an Asian-heavy school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All that matters with these scores is the local norm. If you go to a school where the highest score is a 145, a 132 might be in top 10%. If you are at a school where the top scores are closer to 150ish, a 132 might not be in the top 10%.

They also take into consideration what programs are offered at your base school. If your base school has a Local Level IV and offers the Advanced Math, even if your student is scoring a 160 - your base school might be able to provide the right program. If you go to a school where they don’t offer a Local Level IV, don’t have a full time AART, and there is no peer group - the Center Based School is appropriate.

Keep in mind it’s not ‘is this student smart/gifted/challenged.’ It’s ’given this student’s capabilities is the school able to provide the right curriculum.’

It's incredibly unfair. I have a child with 132s and 5 years ago that child would have automatically gotten in. Not anymore, because we are at an Asian-heavy school.

That's untrue. 5 years ago, your child would have automatically been in-pool. Around 1/3 of the in-pool kids were rejected from AAP. The review has been holistic for a long time, with no automatic admission score threshold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but see these 160 NNAT scores and think that these are kids that definitely did NNAT prep to "test into AAP". It would make since that other data is weighted higher if its suspected that this isn't a true picture of the child's ability since they've been training to take the assessment. The NNAT and CogAT aren't designed to be studied for. I'm a teacher in another district who has never seen a kid with a 160 in over 10-12 years of the district giving this assessment.

My kid scored 160 without prepping. He is a bright kid and does well at school, but I was surprised. How do you even prep for a test like that? It's not math. Plus, it's a scaled score, so someone has to get 160. It doesn't mean they got every question right. Now I'm worried the high score is going to work against him.

All other things being equal the CogAT/NNAT average is important, but the HOPE rating from the teacher is even more important. And as a parent you fill out everything you can to help convince the committee your kid has HOPE and GBRS traits.

People on this board are score obsessed and think they have cracked the code of what scores are "required," but having watched this board for years with 3 kids going through this process, they have no clue. The best clues we have come from the 2020 external committee report, and even that is now getting dated.

highest HOPE scores go to minorities (but only URMs) and / or FARMS.

For entry into the academic (AAP) program, the HOPE rating does not even reach the first academic measure until the reader first sees:

- skin color and
- socio-economic status.

The HOPE scale is designed to judge children by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their academic ability. That is why FCPS chose it to replace the GBRS.

That's not the format FCPS is using for the HOPE scale. I have a copy of DD's packet from last school year.

As an aside, DD didn't score that highly on the HOPE scale and got in anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but see these 160 NNAT scores and think that these are kids that definitely did NNAT prep to "test into AAP". It would make since that other data is weighted higher if its suspected that this isn't a true picture of the child's ability since they've been training to take the assessment. The NNAT and CogAT aren't designed to be studied for. I'm a teacher in another district who has never seen a kid with a 160 in over 10-12 years of the district giving this assessment.

My kid scored 160 without prepping. He is a bright kid and does well at school, but I was surprised. How do you even prep for a test like that? It's not math. Plus, it's a scaled score, so someone has to get 160. It doesn't mean they got every question right. Now I'm worried the high score is going to work against him.

All other things being equal the CogAT/NNAT average is important, but the HOPE rating from the teacher is even more important. And as a parent you fill out everything you can to help convince the committee your kid has HOPE and GBRS traits.

People on this board are score obsessed and think they have cracked the code of what scores are "required," but having watched this board for years with 3 kids going through this process, they have no clue. The best clues we have come from the 2020 external committee report, and even that is now getting dated.

highest HOPE scores go to minorities (but only URMs) and / or FARMS.

For entry into the academic (AAP) program, the HOPE rating does not even reach the first academic measure until the reader first sees:

- skin color and
- socio-economic status.

The HOPE scale is designed to judge children by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their academic ability. That is why FCPS chose it to replace the GBRS.

That's not the format FCPS is using for the HOPE scale. I have a copy of DD's packet from last school year.

As an aside, DD didn't score that highly on the HOPE scale and got in anyways.

Here is a link to the HOPE scale:

https://asset.routledge.com/rt-files/GGeorgi/HOPE+Scale+Sample.pdf?_gl=1*1fihahh*_gcl_au*ODk3MDU0NjU1LjE3Mjg1MTU1NzU.*_ga*MTg5MzcwMzk4OS4xNzI4NTE1NTc2*_ga_0HYE8YG0M6*MTcyODUxNTU3Ny4xLjEuMTcyODUxNTYzMS42LjAuMA..


Decide for yourself where it places the emphasis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but see these 160 NNAT scores and think that these are kids that definitely did NNAT prep to "test into AAP". It would make since that other data is weighted higher if its suspected that this isn't a true picture of the child's ability since they've been training to take the assessment. The NNAT and CogAT aren't designed to be studied for. I'm a teacher in another district who has never seen a kid with a 160 in over 10-12 years of the district giving this assessment.

My kid scored 160 without prepping. He is a bright kid and does well at school, but I was surprised. How do you even prep for a test like that? It's not math. Plus, it's a scaled score, so someone has to get 160. It doesn't mean they got every question right. Now I'm worried the high score is going to work against him.

All other things being equal the CogAT/NNAT average is important, but the HOPE rating from the teacher is even more important. And as a parent you fill out everything you can to help convince the committee your kid has HOPE and GBRS traits.

People on this board are score obsessed and think they have cracked the code of what scores are "required," but having watched this board for years with 3 kids going through this process, they have no clue. The best clues we have come from the 2020 external committee report, and even that is now getting dated.

highest HOPE scores go to minorities (but only URMs) and / or FARMS.

For entry into the academic (AAP) program, the HOPE rating does not even reach the first academic measure until the reader first sees:

- skin color and
- socio-economic status.

The HOPE scale is designed to judge children by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their academic ability. That is why FCPS chose it to replace the GBRS.

That's not the format FCPS is using for the HOPE scale. I have a copy of DD's packet from last school year.

As an aside, DD didn't score that highly on the HOPE scale and got in anyways.

Here is a link to the HOPE scale:

https://asset.routledge.com/rt-files/GGeorgi/HOPE+Scale+Sample.pdf?_gl=1*1fihahh*_gcl_au*ODk3MDU0NjU1LjE3Mjg1MTU1NzU.*_ga*MTg5MzcwMzk4OS4xNzI4NTE1NTc2*_ga_0HYE8YG0M6*MTcyODUxNTU3Ny4xLjEuMTcyODUxNTYzMS42LjAuMA..


Decide for yourself where it places the emphasis.

Well this is FCPS's version of the HOPE. Let's not go fact-free here: https://www.fcps.edu/system/files/forms/2023-10/hoperatingscale.pdf