132 Composite-- CogAT

[Anonymous]

Do I submit optional materials to AAP teacher or Principal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do I submit optional materials to AAP teacher or Principal?

Submit to the AART.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason to use 132 composite is to reduce the workload for the process. There are kids that can score high on one subtest, so they are in pool. I know a kid that scored 135 quant, 94 Verb 101 non-verbal, and that year was in pool. Composite was something like 114. He was not admitted.

By comparison, my DD had (Q/NV/V/Comp) of 119/121/123/124. Which is the stronger score? (My DD had a 14 GBRS, and was admitted, but this was in 2010; YMMV).

does anyone think this would fly this year if parent referred? 1st time for us as its our first child. We think she would have a higher GDbRS based on teachers comments but who knows. Child is bright but we just don't know how bright in comparison. We are at a center school already just seems from talking to some parents scores would need to be a bit higher or have really strong pieces to submit. Still does not hurt to refer correct?

[Anonymous]

15:09 -- I would refer as all they can say is no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a way to eliminate some of the students who have SN- brilliant in one area and need remediation in another.

I don't know that this is correct. My kids have LDs that show clearly on the WISC but that didn't affect their CogAT scores AT ALL. What LDs does the CogAT screen for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a way to eliminate some of the students who have SN- brilliant in one area and need remediation in another.

I don't know that this is correct. My kids have LDs that show clearly on the WISC but that didn't affect their CogAT scores AT ALL. What LDs does the CogAT screen for?

Anecdotally, kids with ADHD oftentimes score much lower on the CogAT than the WISC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you mean if it was NNAT or any section of the CogAT a 132, the pool would just be way too wide?
Hard to believe that many kids got a 132 in any one section than in most prior years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest losers are the younger kids. 129 (the step below 132) is the 97th percentile when adjusted by age but 89th percentile when adjusted by location. It's the 93d percentile when adjusted for neither (grade score).

True. FCPS has over engineered this by buying their own ratings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest losers are the younger kids. 129 (the step below 132) is the 97th percentile when adjusted by age but 89th percentile when adjusted by location. It's the 93d percentile when adjusted for neither (grade score).

True. FCPS has over engineered this by buying their own ratings.

Parents can always refer their child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest losers are the younger kids. 129 (the step below 132) is the 97th percentile when adjusted by age but 89th percentile when adjusted by location. It's the 93d percentile when adjusted for neither (grade score).

True. FCPS has over engineered this by buying their own ratings.

I thought the new test is age-normed and shouldn't put younger kids in any disadvantage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest losers are the younger kids. 129 (the step below 132) is the 97th percentile when adjusted by age but 89th percentile when adjusted by location. It's the 93d percentile when adjusted for neither (grade score).

True. FCPS has over engineered this by buying their own ratings.

I thought the new test is age-normed and shouldn't put younger kids in any disadvantage?

That's correct. It is age-normed so it puts the older kids at a disadvantage instead of the younger ones. The older kids are basically being compared to 3rd graders for the scores that matter (composite score, etc.). For example, a child born in September may have done significantly better than a child born in October. However, the child born in September could still have a lower score because he/she is being compared to 3rd graders. This does not make sense to me since they are all applying for the same grade. It is completely unfair for an older child. We moved here from an area where the cutoff is August. Therefore, my kid is naturally old for his grade.

[Anonymous]

An older second grader who gets the same amount wrong as a younger second grader is thought to be not as bright, that is why the standard age score is lower. In third grade these students would likely be similar but as they age, the younger second grader with the same raw score would tend to surpass the older kid as the age difference becomes less significant.

I have a kid who is older for grade so I can sympathize, they need to be close to perfect to get a good score. I'm not sure that the ceiling is high enough on the test for these kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest losers are the younger kids. 129 (the step below 132) is the 97th percentile when adjusted by age but 89th percentile when adjusted by location. It's the 93d percentile when adjusted for neither (grade score).

True. FCPS has over engineered this by buying their own ratings.

I thought the new test is age-normed and shouldn't put younger kids in any disadvantage?

That's correct. It is age-normed so it puts the older kids at a disadvantage instead of the younger ones. The older kids are basically being compared to 3rd graders for the scores that matter (composite score, etc.). For example, a child born in September may have done significantly better than a child born in October. However, the child born in September could still have a lower score because he/she is being compared to 3rd graders. This does not make sense to me since they are all applying for the same grade. It is completely unfair for an older child. We moved here from an area where the cutoff is August. Therefore, my kid is naturally old for his grade.

If it is age normed, how does this put older kids at a disadvantage exactly? Age normed- mens they are leveling the playing field so that age isn't a factor. In 1st and 2nd grade, an older child would be expected to score higher.

I do think this comes as a surprise to those who tried to game the system by holding back their child before entering kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest losers are the younger kids. 129 (the step below 132) is the 97th percentile when adjusted by age but 89th percentile when adjusted by location. It's the 93d percentile when adjusted for neither (grade score).

True. FCPS has over engineered this by buying their own ratings.

I thought the new test is age-normed and shouldn't put younger kids in any disadvantage?

That's correct. It is age-normed so it puts the older kids at a disadvantage instead of the younger ones. The older kids are basically being compared to 3rd graders for the scores that matter (composite score, etc.). For example, a child born in September may have done significantly better than a child born in October. However, the child born in September could still have a lower score because he/she is being compared to 3rd graders. This does not make sense to me since they are all applying for the same grade. It is completely unfair for an older child. We moved here from an area where the cutoff is August. Therefore, my kid is naturally old for his grade.

If it is age normed, how does this put older kids at a disadvantage exactly? Age normed- mens they are leveling the playing field so that age isn't a factor. In 1st and 2nd grade, an older child would be expected to score higher.

I do think this comes as a surprise to those who tried to game the system by holding back their child before entering kindergarten.

Why should an older child be expected to know more than another 2nd grader? They all have received the same amount of instruction and school work. My child's second grade class is currently learning about analogies, something that appears on the test. 3rd graders have already learned this material. 3rd graders have received an entire extra year of schooling. There are kids barely younger than my child who are graded on an entirely different scale.

Also, not everyone with older kids is "gaming the system." We moved here from a district where the cutoff was August. My child did not make the cutoff there. Here, the cutoff is September. Therefore, he was naturally in a different grade because of his age. This decision was made for us in the previous school district. Also, I know parents who chose to wait to put their kids in school for a variety of reasons, not just academic. Perhaps the child was small for his/her age or socially immature. Not everyone holds back kids for a academic reasons. Don't assume all of these are gaming the system or that these kids are not as smart as the younger students. My child is extremely bright. He should not be labeled as inferior because of his older age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest losers are the younger kids. 129 (the step below 132) is the 97th percentile when adjusted by age but 89th percentile when adjusted by location. It's the 93d percentile when adjusted for neither (grade score).

True. FCPS has over engineered this by buying their own ratings.

I thought the new test is age-normed and shouldn't put younger kids in any disadvantage?

That's correct. It is age-normed so it puts the older kids at a disadvantage instead of the younger ones. The older kids are basically being compared to 3rd graders for the scores that matter (composite score, etc.). For example, a child born in September may have done significantly better than a child born in October. However, the child born in September could still have a lower score because he/she is being compared to 3rd graders. This does not make sense to me since they are all applying for the same grade. It is completely unfair for an older child. We moved here from an area where the cutoff is August. Therefore, my kid is naturally old for his grade.

No. The "Local Scores" and "Grade Scores" are not age normed. The results are pooled as:

"Grade Scores" which is their relative ranking against all kids in the same grade in the US who took the test this year,
"Age scores" which is their relative ranking against all kids of the same age, by month, and
"Local Scores" which is their relative ranking against all kids in the same grade in FCPS

Since this year the only score that counts for the pool is the composite (which is based on "Grade Scores" younger kids are at a disadvantage. When you compare "Age Scores" for oldest to youngest there is about a 10 point swing.

As the pool size gets smaller, the reliability goes down which is the problem with the "local scores".

When using non-age adjusted scores there is a fairly strong bias (about 10 percentile swing (or .4 standard deviation) against the younger since they have had less experience in school and life.