My kid got rejected with 99th percentile Cogat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that FCPS purposefully uses a COGAT that is easier to score in the 98+ percentile.

In the same way NNAT captures a lot of kids and puts them in the pool, so does an easy cogat. This helps to identify more kids who might benefit from aap and would otherwise fall through the cracks. Then a committee can make a final say.

The difference between a 99% and a 95% on this cogat is insignificant to the committee. They must be taking a very holistic look at applicants.

It would have been nice to know they were taking this approach so we could have focused on making a really good packet. Since my DS had a high score, I figured the work samples weren't that important. Oh well, I can try to appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that FCPS purposefully uses a COGAT that is easier to score in the 98+ percentile.

In the same way NNAT captures a lot of kids and puts them in the pool, so does an easy cogat. This helps to identify more kids who might benefit from aap and would otherwise fall through the cracks. Then a committee can make a final say.

The difference between a 99% and a 95% on this cogat is insignificant to the committee. They must be taking a very holistic look at applicants.

It would have been nice to know they were taking this approach so we could have focused on making a really good packet. Since my DS had a high score, I figured the work samples weren't that important. Oh well, I can try to appeal.

If this is true, that would explain why they allowed anyone with a 132 in any section to be in the pool. To have the broadest look possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that FCPS purposefully uses a COGAT that is easier to score in the 98+ percentile.

In the same way NNAT captures a lot of kids and puts them in the pool, so does an easy cogat. This helps to identify more kids who might benefit from aap and would otherwise fall through the cracks. Then a committee can make a final say.

The difference between a 99% and a 95% on this cogat is insignificant to the committee. They must be taking a very holistic look at applicants.

It would have been nice to know they were taking this approach so we could have focused on making a really good packet. Since my DS had a high score, I figured the work samples weren't that important. Oh well, I can try to appeal.

PP's theory is nonsense. Don't rely on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious who is on this committee?

Files are screened by AARTs from all over the county. Every file has at least 2 readers.

So one AART votes yes or no, and then a second one confirms that?

If the work samples are the most important part of the file, they should let people know and make them mandatory. Since the test scores are required and everything else is optional, reasonable parents conclude that test scores, reading level, report cards are the information the decision is based on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that FCPS purposefully uses a COGAT that is easier to score in the 98+ percentile.

In the same way NNAT captures a lot of kids and puts them in the pool, so does an easy cogat. This helps to identify more kids who might benefit from aap and would otherwise fall through the cracks. Then a committee can make a final say.

The difference between a 99% and a 95% on this cogat is insignificant to the committee. They must be taking a very holistic look at applicants.

It would have been nice to know they were taking this approach so we could have focused on making a really good packet. Since my DS had a high score, I figured the work samples weren't that important. Oh well, I can try to appeal.

I also didn't put effort into the packet because my child had such a high score and is a very smart kid. I thought he would be in. Guess I was wrong.

I'm wondering if I should schedule a WISC since he already scored a 141 Cogat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious who is on this committee?

Files are screened by AARTs from all over the county. Every file has at least 2 readers.

So one AART votes yes or no, and then a second one confirms that?

If the work samples are the most important part of the file, they should let people know and make them mandatory. Since the test scores are required and everything else is optional, reasonable parents conclude that test scores, reading level, report cards are the information the decision is based on.

No, I believe each packet is reviewed twice and then the rejected ones are reviewed again on a final pass before decisions are sent out.

[Anonymous]

So three separate AARTs rejected these high scoring files? Am I the only one who thinks something weird is going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that FCPS purposefully uses a COGAT that is easier to score in the 98+ percentile.

In the same way NNAT captures a lot of kids and puts them in the pool, so does an easy cogat. This helps to identify more kids who might benefit from aap and would otherwise fall through the cracks. Then a committee can make a final say.

The difference between a 99% and a 95% on this cogat is insignificant to the committee. They must be taking a very holistic look at applicants.

It would have been nice to know they were taking this approach so we could have focused on making a really good packet. Since my DS had a high score, I figured the work samples weren't that important. Oh well, I can try to appeal.

I also didn't put effort into the packet because my child had such a high score and is a very smart kid. I thought he would be in. Guess I was wrong.

I'm wondering if I should schedule a WISC since he already scored a 141 Cogat.

Did you see what his teacher wrote in his packet? I cannot imagine him being rejected with those scores and positive remarks.

Of course schedule a WISC. The committee obviously thinks the CoGat was a fluke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious who is on this committee?

Files are screened by AARTs from all over the county. Every file has at least 2 readers.

From what I've heard, the selection panels are formed from AARTs, AAP teachers, principals, and school counselors. You need 4 of the 6 people on the panel to vote for your child to get in. All of the people on the panels are going to have their own biases about who belongs in AAP or doesn't, so the process won't be completely consistent. Some groups will statistically be more lenient, while others will be more strict.

The teacher comments, work samples, parent questionnaire, and referral form are all important for framing how the committee views your child. If you have low scores but are good at articulating why your child would benefit from AAP, your child will probably get in. If you have high scores but the committee gets the impression that your child is prepped, your child won't get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If the work samples are the most important part of the file, they should let people know and make them mandatory. Since the test scores are required and everything else is optional, reasonable parents conclude that test scores, reading level, report cards are the information the decision is based on.

At the AAP info session, the AART strongly recommended that everyone submit the questionnaire, work samples, letters of recommendation, and anything else they might have. There were even a bunch of slides illustrating what makes a good work sample vs. a poor one for the purposes of AAP selection.

The whole thing is absurd, though. AAP is only mildly accelerated. Obviously, a kid with 99th percentile test scores, high reading level, and good grades will be fine in AAP. The kids with the lower scores who are being admitted holistically are the ones slowing down the class for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If the work samples are the most important part of the file, they should let people know and make them mandatory. .

The samples submitted by the school are important, and it's already mandatory for the school to supply two of them. Some teachers are better than others at selecting good work samples. My theory is that if your child has sloppy handwriting or is a poor speller, this will strongly work against your child for AAP selection, even though neither handwriting nor spelling ability are very correlated with intelligence.

[Anonymous]

I was thinking the same thing. I think for the people with 99% on Cogat, more information is better. Did you request a copy of the packet and have you seen the GBRS score? I have been on this forum for a number of years as I have an older child in AAP and a younger one who got in this year. It has been discussed that the committee seems to like to see 2 factors of giftedness. If Cogat was high, but GBRS and NNAT was low that would be a not admit.

This does not take away from the fact that there are always head scratchers every year. Meaning consistently high scores being rejected while some low or borderline scores being accepted.even without great commentary. I know the GBRS is different this year and not numerically maybe the comments themselves are weighted more. But this happens every year. And since not every first round high score reject comes back and says what happens on appeal I would hope that these kids are admitted on appeal with very little effort.

I feel for the parents who have multiple markers of giftedeness being rejected while people with lower scores are getting in. But this happens every year and I just don’t understand the inconsistent resullts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the work samples are the most important part of the file, they should let people know and make them mandatory. .

The samples submitted by the school are important, and it's already mandatory for the school to supply two of them. Some teachers are better than others at selecting good work samples. My theory is that if your child has sloppy handwriting or is a poor speller, this will strongly work against your child for AAP selection, even though neither handwriting nor spelling ability are very correlated with intelligence.

The school supplies more than 2 work samples, they supply all of them for in pool packets. Neatness or good handwriting is immaterial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the work samples are the most important part of the file, they should let people know and make them mandatory. Since the test scores are required and everything else is optional, reasonable parents conclude that test scores, reading level, report cards are the information the decision is based on.

At the AAP info session, the AART strongly recommended that everyone submit the questionnaire, work samples, letters of recommendation, and anything else they might have. There were even a bunch of slides illustrating what makes a good work sample vs. a poor one for the purposes of AAP selection.

The whole thing is absurd, though. AAP is only mildly accelerated. Obviously, a kid with 99th percentile test scores, high reading level, and good grades will be fine in AAP. The kids with the lower scores who are being admitted holistically are the ones slowing down the class for everyone else.

Op here. My child had 99th percentile scores, advanced reader, advanced math and gets all 4s on his report card. He is a quiet kid so isn’t the type of child who raises his hand in class. I don’t have his gbrs but I’m going to assume he received occasionally remarks instead of consistently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking the same thing. I think for the people with 99% on Cogat, more information is better. Did you request a copy of the packet and have you seen the GBRS score? I have been on this forum for a number of years as I have an older child in AAP and a younger one who got in this year. It has been discussed that the committee seems to like to see 2 factors of giftedness. If Cogat was high, but GBRS and NNAT was low that would be a not admit.

This does not take away from the fact that there are always head scratchers every year. Meaning consistently high scores being rejected while some low or borderline scores being accepted.even without great commentary. I know the GBRS is different this year and not numerically maybe the comments themselves are weighted more. But this happens every year. And since not every first round high score reject comes back and says what happens on appeal I would hope that these kids are admitted on appeal with very little effort.

I feel for the parents who have multiple markers of giftedeness being rejected while people with lower scores are getting in. But this happens every year and I just don’t understand the inconsistent resullts.

Candidates need solid evidence that they are qualified beyond prepping and parental polishing. Reviewers are getting better at seeing through the bs. Prepping has poisoned the pond.