Do they count iready scores now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed if the student is getting 135+ on the CoGAT, they should be getting 99% on the iready. Anything below a 95% is suspicious, and anything below 90% signals prepping. If the HOPE scores are more in line with 90%tile than 99%tile, then I can see why the selection committee would reject.

Completely disagree here. COGAT and Iready are measuring different things.

COGAT is measuring general intelligence like an IQ test

and so the questions have nothing to do with what kids are learning in school. Iready, in contrast, is a way to check on comprehension and understanding of grade-level material.

Also, with any standardized test for young kids, it matters a lot how the kid happens to feel on the day the test is given. Thus, if someone has one bad score, I don't think you can assume one thing or another.

If the COGAT is measuring general intelligence like an IQ test, how come it is fairly easy to prep for?

One can "prep" for any test. Who says you can't prep for an IQ test? If an IQ test were the basis for entry into AAP, people would prep for it.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if anyone can "prep" for any test, it doesn't mean that anyone can get perfect scores on the COGAT or an IQ test. "Prep" just lets one perform to the best of one's ability (which could still be bad because one is inherently bad at a topic or a subject). I don't understand all the hate towards "prepping." Why shouldn't we reward people who work hard at something?

I am sympathetic towards people who dislike standardized testing because they don't think it's a precise measure of things and it's something that can be easily manipulated. However, if that is the standard, why hate on people who are trying to make the best of a flawed system by working hard?

The reason that prepping invalidates the Cogat (and a few other tests including the old quant test for TJ admissions) is that the test is designed to evaluate someone's response to a new question that they haven't seen before and how they would think about it or solve it. If they have prepped, they have already thought about or solved that type of question, may have already been told how to answer it. So the test becomes invalid. Prepping isn't studying for a test, it's breaking it.

Fwiw, the LAST is considered the best IQ proxy test because everyone studies for it and everyone comes in with the same amount of prepping. Not the case for any other IQ proxy test, where some people take it cold and others have prepped for it. I'll tell you my LSAT score if you tell me yours.

Our school does 3 days of CogAT familiarization before the test. Same with NNAT. So all the kids come in knowing what the questions look like.

That is the prescribed introduction. That is not studying or prepping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed if the student is getting 135+ on the CoGAT, they should be getting 99% on the iready. Anything below a 95% is suspicious, and anything below 90% signals prepping. If the HOPE scores are more in line with 90%tile than 99%tile, then I can see why the selection committee would reject.

Completely disagree here. COGAT and Iready are measuring different things.

COGAT is measuring general intelligence like an IQ test

and so the questions have nothing to do with what kids are learning in school. Iready, in contrast, is a way to check on comprehension and understanding of grade-level material.

Also, with any standardized test for young kids, it matters a lot how the kid happens to feel on the day the test is given. Thus, if someone has one bad score, I don't think you can assume one thing or another.

If the COGAT is measuring general intelligence like an IQ test, how come it is fairly easy to prep for?

One can "prep" for any test. Who says you can't prep for an IQ test? If an IQ test were the basis for entry into AAP, people would prep for it.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if anyone can "prep" for any test, it doesn't mean that anyone can get perfect scores on the COGAT or an IQ test. "Prep" just lets one perform to the best of one's ability (which could still be bad because one is inherently bad at a topic or a subject). I don't understand all the hate towards "prepping." Why shouldn't we reward people who work hard at something?

I am sympathetic towards people who dislike standardized testing because they don't think it's a precise measure of things and it's something that can be easily manipulated. However, if that is the standard, why hate on people who are trying to make the best of a flawed system by working hard?

The reason that prepping invalidates the Cogat (and a few other tests including the old quant test for TJ admissions) is that the test is designed to evaluate someone's response to a new question that they haven't seen before and how they would think about it or solve it. If they have prepped, they have already thought about or solved that type of question, may have already been told how to answer it. So the test becomes invalid. Prepping isn't studying for a test, it's breaking it.

Fwiw, the LAST is considered the best IQ proxy test because everyone studies for it and everyone comes in with the same amount of prepping. Not the case for any other IQ proxy test, where some people take it cold and others have prepped for it. I'll tell you my LSAT score if you tell me yours.

Our school does 3 days of CogAT familiarization before the test. Same with NNAT. So all the kids come in knowing what the questions look like.

That is the prescribed introduction. That is not studying or prepping.

PP said "a new question that they haven't seen before."

[Anonymous]

I'm now living outside of the DMV, so maybe no one cares, but my kids scored in the 99% on cogat but were denied admission to the gifted program due to iReady scores. Ironically, my kid's iReady scores were higher at the beginning of the year than at the end of the year in one subject that year. Shall we conclude that a year of school made DC dumber? In the fall, DC tested in the 95% + in both reading and math after a summer of doing a little AoPS and reading. The whole system is broken, IMO. We kept up with AoPS and DC tested into Algebra in 6th grade without having ever gotten gifted services at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm now living outside of the DMV, so maybe no one cares, but my kids scored in the 99% on cogat but were denied admission to the gifted program due to iReady scores. Ironically, my kid's iReady scores were higher at the beginning of the year than at the end of the year in one subject that year. Shall we conclude that a year of school made DC dumber? In the fall, DC tested in the 95% + in both reading and math after a summer of doing a little AoPS and reading. The whole system is broken, IMO. We kept up with AoPS and DC tested into Algebra in 6th grade without having ever gotten gifted services at school.

This regularly happens to my kids (yes, plural). This year one of my kid's entire classes got in trouble because too many of the class did worse on the winter language arts iReady than the fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed if the student is getting 135+ on the CoGAT, they should be getting 99% on the iready. Anything below a 95% is suspicious, and anything below 90% signals prepping. If the HOPE scores are more in line with 90%tile than 99%tile, then I can see why the selection committee would reject.

That's absurd. The types of families that heavily prep for the CogAT are also the types who have their kids in outside enrichment programs. Prepped kids are used to taking tests and have learned quite a lot of above grade level content, which means that their iready scores are likely to be quite high. Prepping for the CogAT can only increase scores somewhat, and it's unlikely that a kid who wouldn't otherwise score in at least the high 120s would end up with a 135+.

A prepped kid's profile is a somewhat high CogAT, like 125-135 with high iready scores, and great work samples. The teachers will likely observe many HOPE-type traits, but in a way where the kid participates and is advanced, but doesn't show any real spark of genius.

A kid with a 135+ CogAT, but lower iready scores and lower HOPE scores looks like an unprepped kid who is not in any enrichment programs, and either got very lucky with guessing on the CogAT or is a diamond in the rough in terms of aptitude. The kid may be somewhat checked out in the 2nd grade classroom or have undiagnosed LDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed if the student is getting 135+ on the CoGAT, they should be getting 99% on the iready. Anything below a 95% is suspicious, and anything below 90% signals prepping. If the HOPE scores are more in line with 90%tile than 99%tile, then I can see why the selection committee would reject.

Completely disagree here. COGAT and Iready are measuring different things.

COGAT is measuring general intelligence like an IQ test

and so the questions have nothing to do with what kids are learning in school. Iready, in contrast, is a way to check on comprehension and understanding of grade-level material.

Also, with any standardized test for young kids, it matters a lot how the kid happens to feel on the day the test is given. Thus, if someone has one bad score, I don't think you can assume one thing or another.

If the COGAT is measuring general intelligence like an IQ test, how come it is fairly easy to prep for?

One can "prep" for any test. Who says you can't prep for an IQ test? If an IQ test were the basis for entry into AAP, people would prep for it.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if anyone can "prep" for any test, it doesn't mean that anyone can get perfect scores on the COGAT or an IQ test. "Prep" just lets one perform to the best of one's ability (which could still be bad because one is inherently bad at a topic or a subject). I don't understand all the hate towards "prepping." Why shouldn't we reward people who work hard at something?

I am sympathetic towards people who dislike standardized testing because they don't think it's a precise measure of things and it's something that can be easily manipulated. However, if that is the standard, why hate on people who are trying to make the best of a flawed system by working hard?

The reason that prepping invalidates the Cogat (and a few other tests including the old quant test for TJ admissions) is that the test is designed to evaluate someone's response to a new question that they haven't seen before and how they would think about it or solve it. If they have prepped, they have already thought about or solved that type of question, may have already been told how to answer it. So the test becomes invalid. Prepping isn't studying for a test, it's breaking it.

Fwiw, the LAST is considered the best IQ proxy test because everyone studies for it and everyone comes in with the same amount of prepping. Not the case for any other IQ proxy test, where some people take it cold and others have prepped for it. I'll tell you my LSAT score if you tell me yours.

Our school does 3 days of CogAT familiarization before the test. Same with NNAT. So all the kids come in knowing what the questions look like.

That is the prescribed introduction. That is not studying or prepping.

NP but someone on a different thread said that giving my kid a workbook to look through on their own was prepping them, so I don't see why this wouldn't be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm now living outside of the DMV, so maybe no one cares, but my kids scored in the 99% on cogat but were denied admission to the gifted program due to iReady scores. Ironically, my kid's iReady scores were higher at the beginning of the year than at the end of the year in one subject that year. Shall we conclude that a year of school made DC dumber? In the fall, DC tested in the 95% + in both reading and math after a summer of doing a little AoPS and reading. The whole system is broken, IMO. We kept up with AoPS and DC tested into Algebra in 6th grade without having ever gotten gifted services at school.

This regularly happens to my kids (yes, plural). This year one of my kid's entire classes got in trouble because too many of the class did worse on the winter language arts iReady than the fall.

It regularly happens to mine as well. I'm the PP. My kids likely inherited a mild case of ADHD from me (see above for terrible grammar when rushing). Whether they will focus and try on an iReady test on any given day is a gamble. The only conclusion I can draw with certainty is that iReady is not an accurate measure of their aptitude in any subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed if the student is getting 135+ on the CoGAT, they should be getting 99% on the iready. Anything below a 95% is suspicious, and anything below 90% signals prepping. If the HOPE scores are more in line with 90%tile than 99%tile, then I can see why the selection committee would reject.

Completely disagree here. COGAT and Iready are measuring different things.

COGAT is measuring general intelligence like an IQ test

and so the questions have nothing to do with what kids are learning in school. Iready, in contrast, is a way to check on comprehension and understanding of grade-level material.

Also, with any standardized test for young kids, it matters a lot how the kid happens to feel on the day the test is given. Thus, if someone has one bad score, I don't think you can assume one thing or another.

If the COGAT is measuring general intelligence like an IQ test, how come it is fairly easy to prep for?

One can "prep" for any test. Who says you can't prep for an IQ test? If an IQ test were the basis for entry into AAP, people would prep for it.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if anyone can "prep" for any test, it doesn't mean that anyone can get perfect scores on the COGAT or an IQ test. "Prep" just lets one perform to the best of one's ability (which could still be bad because one is inherently bad at a topic or a subject). I don't understand all the hate towards "prepping." Why shouldn't we reward people who work hard at something?

I am sympathetic towards people who dislike standardized testing because they don't think it's a precise measure of things and it's something that can be easily manipulated. However, if that is the standard, why hate on people who are trying to make the best of a flawed system by working hard?

The reason that prepping invalidates the Cogat (and a few other tests including the old quant test for TJ admissions) is that the test is designed to evaluate someone's response to a new question that they haven't seen before and how they would think about it or solve it. If they have prepped, they have already thought about or solved that type of question, may have already been told how to answer it. So the test becomes invalid. Prepping isn't studying for a test, it's breaking it.

Fwiw, the LAST is considered the best IQ proxy test because everyone studies for it and everyone comes in with the same amount of prepping. Not the case for any other IQ proxy test, where some people take it cold and others have prepped for it. I'll tell you my LSAT score if you tell me yours.

Our school does 3 days of CogAT familiarization before the test. Same with NNAT. So all the kids come in knowing what the questions look like.

That is the prescribed introduction. That is not studying or prepping.

NP but someone on a different thread said that giving my kid a workbook to look through on their own was prepping them, so I don't see why this wouldn't be.

Why are people quibbling over the definition of 'prepping?' The real question is to what extent the child's score will likely be inflated. If the school does a little CogAT familiarization, or the kid looks through a workbook, then the score is at best going to be slightly inflated. If the kid does a full prep program, the score may be much more inflated.

It's great that FCPS is now familiarizing everyone with the types of questions being asked, so more of the kids are on an even footing, even if everyone's scores are very slightly inflated.

[Anonymous]

Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

[Anonymous]

My child reports her teacher did absolutely nothing for the NNAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed if the student is getting 135+ on the CoGAT, they should be getting 99% on the iready. Anything below a 95% is suspicious, and anything below 90% signals prepping. If the HOPE scores are more in line with 90%tile than 99%tile, then I can see why the selection committee would reject.

Completely disagree here. COGAT and Iready are measuring different things.

COGAT is measuring general intelligence like an IQ test

and so the questions have nothing to do with what kids are learning in school. Iready, in contrast, is a way to check on comprehension and understanding of grade-level material.

Also, with any standardized test for young kids, it matters a lot how the kid happens to feel on the day the test is given. Thus, if someone has one bad score, I don't think you can assume one thing or another.

If the COGAT is measuring general intelligence like an IQ test, how come it is fairly easy to prep for?

One can "prep" for any test. Who says you can't prep for an IQ test? If an IQ test were the basis for entry into AAP, people would prep for it.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if anyone can "prep" for any test, it doesn't mean that anyone can get perfect scores on the COGAT or an IQ test. "Prep" just lets one perform to the best of one's ability (which could still be bad because one is inherently bad at a topic or a subject). I don't understand all the hate towards "prepping." Why shouldn't we reward people who work hard at something?

I am sympathetic towards people who dislike standardized testing because they don't think it's a precise measure of things and it's something that can be easily manipulated. However, if that is the standard, why hate on people who are trying to make the best of a flawed system by working hard?

The reason that prepping invalidates the Cogat (and a few other tests including the old quant test for TJ admissions) is that the test is designed to evaluate someone's response to a new question that they haven't seen before and how they would think about it or solve it. If they have prepped, they have already thought about or solved that type of question, may have already been told how to answer it. So the test becomes invalid. Prepping isn't studying for a test, it's breaking it.

Fwiw, the LAST is considered the best IQ proxy test because everyone studies for it and everyone comes in with the same amount of prepping. Not the case for any other IQ proxy test, where some people take it cold and others have prepped for it. I'll tell you my LSAT score if you tell me yours.

Our school does 3 days of CogAT familiarization before the test. Same with NNAT. So all the kids come in knowing what the questions look like.

That is the prescribed introduction. That is not studying or prepping.

NP but someone on a different thread said that giving my kid a workbook to look through on their own was prepping them, so I don't see why this wouldn't be.

Why are people quibbling over the definition of 'prepping?' The real question is to what extent the child's score will likely be inflated. If the school does a little CogAT familiarization, or the kid looks through a workbook, then the score is at best going to be slightly inflated. If the kid does a full prep program, the score may be much more inflated.

It's great that FCPS is now familiarizing everyone with the types of questions being asked, so more of the kids are on an even footing, even if everyone's scores are very slightly inflated.

"prepping" is term used by the privileged suburban parents to keep lower class parents from buying a $9 cogat/nnat/math/english workbooks to discourage scoring high on cogat/nnat/iready, since they have heavy invested in sophisticated prepping by enrolling their own kids in expensive private preschools for an early legup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

The iready is part of the portfolio as of last year or 2 yrs ago. Ever since they did away with DRA. They wouldn’t include Iready scores if it weren’t part of the picture in assessing eligibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed if the student is getting 135+ on the CoGAT, they should be getting 99% on the iready. Anything below a 95% is suspicious, and anything below 90% signals prepping. If the HOPE scores are more in line with 90%tile than 99%tile, then I can see why the selection committee would reject.

Maybe… my DC got a 135+ quant score on the Cogat. We didn’t even discuss the test at home, much less prep. Their math iready scores aren’t great.

gen ed is the right fit for now, later with improved math iready scores AAP would be appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before the application deadline in December, I asked the school AART if iReady would be considered and they said NO. The issue about iReady being included keeps getting posted and repeated without evidence. I was told the committee would focus on assessing critical thinking and problem solving. iReady measures comprehension of the lessons taught in that grade by simply recalling the info. It’s known that if a child is exposed to higher-level content, they will like perform above-grade in iReady. The other important point the AART mentioned is that cognitive tests (eg, COGAT and NNAT) would have less weight. A lower score does not imply rejection in the same way a high score does not guarantee it.

I requested the packet from the school and iReady percentiles are listed on the same page as NNAT and COGAT scores.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think so. I know someone kid with less than stellar Iready scores got in. My guess is the HOPE (or whatever it is called this year) is weighted more heavily