5th Grade CogAT : Number Correct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99%, V53, Q43, N49. In boundary for TPMS, currently in a CES and not accepted at either TPMS or Eastern. At least the kid learned how to write in the CES.

If MCPS did a better job for all kids, people might not be losing their minds over envelopes. The County goes through the process of identifying kids as gifted at multiple points (and I think they're a little too generous with that label), but then has limited ability to actually provide enrichment. 100 spots for STEM enrichment is a joke. All kids could benefit from enriched science classes, not just the 99.9% who won this bizarre mcps lottery.

Those scores are high! It's hard to believe they aren't high enough to get a spot, or at least waitlisted!

If those scores are accurate something else is going on. My kid got spots at both magnets with lower scores, also in bound for TPMS. MCPS says it’s not any one factor so I’d guess there are differences in:

- MAP scores
- grades
- age (PP’s kid is likely red shirted or one of the older kids)

Wait. So you're on an anonymous board talking to someone else on an anonymous board and you happen to know that you're both at the same elementary school?

Yes, because of the info provided.

If you're actually at the same school I would bet your child is a boy and the other PP's child is a girl or vice versa.

I'm the PP. (V53, Q43, N49.)..My kid is a boy and not red-shirted. He has a late spring birthday. His gets all As, 5 on Parcc and 99% on Map, so I'm not really sure why he was rejected outright, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the number of boys? Or maybe they want a higher quant score for TPMS. Or, if you have 40 plus kids in a program with really similar scores, do you just pick names out of a hat?

My kid is a girl, with a late summer birthday (not red-shirted), with Q50 and N48, and 99% on MAPs - and she was outright rejected for TPMS. However, there is a boy in her class with off-the-charts MAPs (like, 300, or something, according to him) and he got into TPMS (and I suspect his CogAT are similarly high). So, no, they don't just 'pick names out of the hat', they compare children within the same MS cluster. So it's likely that other kids at your DC"s program just scored higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99%, V53, Q43, N49. In boundary for TPMS, currently in a CES and not accepted at either TPMS or Eastern. At least the kid learned how to write in the CES.

If MCPS did a better job for all kids, people might not be losing their minds over envelopes. The County goes through the process of identifying kids as gifted at multiple points (and I think they're a little too generous with that label), but then has limited ability to actually provide enrichment. 100 spots for STEM enrichment is a joke. All kids could benefit from enriched science classes, not just the 99.9% who won this bizarre mcps lottery.

Those scores are high! It's hard to believe they aren't high enough to get a spot, or at least waitlisted!

If those scores are accurate something else is going on. My kid got spots at both magnets with lower scores, also in bound for TPMS. MCPS says it’s not any one factor so I’d guess there are differences in:

- MAP scores
- grades
- age (PP’s kid is likely red shirted or one of the older kids)

Wait. So you're on an anonymous board talking to someone else on an anonymous board and you happen to know that you're both at the same elementary school?

Yes, because of the info provided.

If you're actually at the same school I would bet your child is a boy and the other PP's child is a girl or vice versa.

I'm the PP. (V53, Q43, N49.)..My kid is a boy and not red-shirted. He has a late spring birthday. His gets all As, 5 on Parcc and 99% on Map, so I'm not really sure why he was rejected outright, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the number of boys? Or maybe they want a higher quant score for TPMS. Or, if you have 40 plus kids in a program with really similar scores, do you just pick names out of a hat?

This. Even after they accounted for cohort, there are still too few seats for the qualified kids
And they are really all that different based on these scores and grade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99%, V53, Q43, N49. In boundary for TPMS, currently in a CES and not accepted at either TPMS or Eastern. At least the kid learned how to write in the CES.

If MCPS did a better job for all kids, people might not be losing their minds over envelopes. The County goes through the process of identifying kids as gifted at multiple points (and I think they're a little too generous with that label), but then has limited ability to actually provide enrichment. 100 spots for STEM enrichment is a joke. All kids could benefit from enriched science classes, not just the 99.9% who won this bizarre mcps lottery.

Those scores are high! It's hard to believe they aren't high enough to get a spot, or at least waitlisted!

If those scores are accurate something else is going on. My kid got spots at both magnets with lower scores, also in bound for TPMS. MCPS says it’s not any one factor so I’d guess there are differences in:

- MAP scores
- grades
- age (PP’s kid is likely red shirted or one of the older kids)

Wait. So you're on an anonymous board talking to someone else on an anonymous board and you happen to know that you're both at the same elementary school?

Yes, because of the info provided.

If you're actually at the same school I would bet your child is a boy and the other PP's child is a girl or vice versa.

I'm the PP. (V53, Q43, N49.)..My kid is a boy and not red-shirted. He has a late spring birthday. His gets all As, 5 on Parcc and 99% on Map, so I'm not really sure why he was rejected outright, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the number of boys? Or maybe they want a higher quant score for TPMS. Or, if you have 40 plus kids in a program with really similar scores, do you just pick names out of a hat?

My kid is a girl, with a late summer birthday (not red-shirted), with Q50 and N48, and 99% on MAPs - and she was outright rejected for TPMS. However, there is a boy in her class with off-the-charts MAPs (like, 300, or something, according to him) and he got into TPMS (and I suspect his CogAT are similarly high). So, no, they don't just 'pick names out of the hat', they compare children within the same MS cluster. So it's likely that other kids at your DC"s program just scored higher.

Can the two posters above please share the National and local percentiles for each of this scores? I think that will help unravel what’s going on, which I am convinced is at least partially due to age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99%, V53, Q43, N49. In boundary for TPMS, currently in a CES and not accepted at either TPMS or Eastern. At least the kid learned how to write in the CES.

If MCPS did a better job for all kids, people might not be losing their minds over envelopes. The County goes through the process of identifying kids as gifted at multiple points (and I think they're a little too generous with that label), but then has limited ability to actually provide enrichment. 100 spots for STEM enrichment is a joke. All kids could benefit from enriched science classes, not just the 99.9% who won this bizarre mcps lottery.

Those scores are high! It's hard to believe they aren't high enough to get a spot, or at least waitlisted!

If those scores are accurate something else is going on. My kid got spots at both magnets with lower scores, also in bound for TPMS. MCPS says it’s not any one factor so I’d guess there are differences in:

- MAP scores
- grades
- age (PP’s kid is likely red shirted or one of the older kids)

Wait. So you're on an anonymous board talking to someone else on an anonymous board and you happen to know that you're both at the same elementary school?

Yes, because of the info provided.

If you're actually at the same school I would bet your child is a boy and the other PP's child is a girl or vice versa.

I'm the PP. (V53, Q43, N49.)..My kid is a boy and not red-shirted. He has a late spring birthday. His gets all As, 5 on Parcc and 99% on Map, so I'm not really sure why he was rejected outright, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the number of boys? Or maybe they want a higher quant score for TPMS. Or, if you have 40 plus kids in a program with really similar scores, do you just pick names out of a hat?

My kid is a girl, with a late summer birthday (not red-shirted), with Q50 and N48, and 99% on MAPs - and she was outright rejected for TPMS. However, there is a boy in her class with off-the-charts MAPs (like, 300, or something, according to him) and he got into TPMS (and I suspect his CogAT are similarly high). So, no, they don't just 'pick names out of the hat', they compare children within the same MS cluster. So it's likely that other kids at your DC"s program just scored higher.

And what is the NV? The non verbal score is very important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I is not hard for the committee to know which child is from a CES and which is not. The report cards are different. Kids from a CES have their Reading & Writing marked with an "ESP" in 4th grade, and Reading/Writing/Science/Social Studies marked with "ESP" in 5th. I have multiple kids who have or have not gone through the program. Of course we don't know of every kids' scores but we know enough of those admitted into the MS magnets and those who did not, including my own. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that MCPS tries to balance gender. If you're a boy, you get a leg up in your admission to Eastern and if you're a girl, you get a boost into Takoma. Also, MCPS also tries to balance the admission from the CES and non-CES kids into the middle school magnets. We have seem multiple scores (across the board with PARCC, Grades, MAP, CoGat) higher by kids who is from the CES but did not get admitted but a slightly lower score by a kid at a non-CES (even at a W home ES) get admission. So gender and CES status absolutely play into the admission equation.

There are too many sharp kids in this area, and MCPS really needs to consider opening these types of programs up. Truly open it up and not just throw out the name without proper support. The ridiculous MS enriched classes are not really enriched as at our home school, they let practically all the kids in it. When you have 100% of the 6th graders in the "magnet social studies", it frankly cannot be enriched the same way.

You are assuming the committee actually saw their report cards, and not just a grade for reading, writing and/or math on a grid with the other scores. Given the sheer number of students now considered for the programs and the fact this is done at MS (test Nov, decisions just came out), HS (test Dec, decisions coming soon) and ES (test Feb, Decisions March or April) I seriously doubt the committees are looking at individual report cards - there has to be a way they pull the pertinent data to one place to look at together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I is not hard for the committee to know which child is from a CES and which is not. The report cards are different. Kids from a CES have their Reading & Writing marked with an "ESP" in 4th grade, and Reading/Writing/Science/Social Studies marked with "ESP" in 5th. I have multiple kids who have or have not gone through the program. Of course we don't know of every kids' scores but we know enough of those admitted into the MS magnets and those who did not, including my own. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that MCPS tries to balance gender. If you're a boy, you get a leg up in your admission to Eastern and if you're a girl, you get a boost into Takoma. Also, MCPS also tries to balance the admission from the CES and non-CES kids into the middle school magnets. We have seem multiple scores (across the board with PARCC, Grades, MAP, CoGat) higher by kids who is from the CES but did not get admitted but a slightly lower score by a kid at a non-CES (even at a W home ES) get admission. So gender and CES status absolutely play into the admission equation.

There are too many sharp kids in this area, and MCPS really needs to consider opening these types of programs up. Truly open it up and not just throw out the name without proper support. The ridiculous MS enriched classes are not really enriched as at our home school, they let practically all the kids in it. When you have 100% of the 6th graders in the "magnet social studies", it frankly cannot be enriched the same way.

You are assuming the committee actually saw their report cards, and not just a grade for reading, writing and/or math on a grid with the other scores. Given the sheer number of students now considered for the programs and the fact this is done at MS (test Nov, decisions just came out), HS (test Dec, decisions coming soon) and ES (test Feb, Decisions March or April) I seriously doubt the committees are looking at individual report cards - there has to be a way they pull the pertinent data to one place to look at together.

Report cards are literally the very first thing listed in the things they reviewed for selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I is not hard for the committee to know which child is from a CES and which is not. The report cards are different. Kids from a CES have their Reading & Writing marked with an "ESP" in 4th grade, and Reading/Writing/Science/Social Studies marked with "ESP" in 5th. I have multiple kids who have or have not gone through the program. Of course we don't know of every kids' scores but we know enough of those admitted into the MS magnets and those who did not, including my own. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that MCPS tries to balance gender. If you're a boy, you get a leg up in your admission to Eastern and if you're a girl, you get a boost into Takoma. Also, MCPS also tries to balance the admission from the CES and non-CES kids into the middle school magnets. We have seem multiple scores (across the board with PARCC, Grades, MAP, CoGat) higher by kids who is from the CES but did not get admitted but a slightly lower score by a kid at a non-CES (even at a W home ES) get admission. So gender and CES status absolutely play into the admission equation.

There are too many sharp kids in this area, and MCPS really needs to consider opening these types of programs up. Truly open it up and not just throw out the name without proper support. The ridiculous MS enriched classes are not really enriched as at our home school, they let practically all the kids in it. When you have 100% of the 6th graders in the "magnet social studies", it frankly cannot be enriched the same way.

You are assuming the committee actually saw their report cards, and not just a grade for reading, writing and/or math on a grid with the other scores. Given the sheer number of students now considered for the programs and the fact this is done at MS (test Nov, decisions just came out), HS (test Dec, decisions coming soon) and ES (test Feb, Decisions March or April) I seriously doubt the committees are looking at individual report cards - there has to be a way they pull the pertinent data to one place to look at together.

You keep talking about a grid, but there's no "grid." They individually review each applicant who makes it to a certain point in the process. They log in to a system and are able to see their student record with the names, schools, race and other information hidden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99%, V53, Q43, N49. In boundary for TPMS, currently in a CES and not accepted at either TPMS or Eastern. At least the kid learned how to write in the CES.

If MCPS did a better job for all kids, people might not be losing their minds over envelopes. The County goes through the process of identifying kids as gifted at multiple points (and I think they're a little too generous with that label), but then has limited ability to actually provide enrichment. 100 spots for STEM enrichment is a joke. All kids could benefit from enriched science classes, not just the 99.9% who won this bizarre mcps lottery.

Those scores are high! It's hard to believe they aren't high enough to get a spot, or at least waitlisted!

If those scores are accurate something else is going on. My kid got spots at both magnets with lower scores, also in bound for TPMS. MCPS says it’s not any one factor so I’d guess there are differences in:

- MAP scores
- grades
- age (PP’s kid is likely red shirted or one of the older kids)

Wait. So you're on an anonymous board talking to someone else on an anonymous board and you happen to know that you're both at the same elementary school?

Yes, because of the info provided.

If you're actually at the same school I would bet your child is a boy and the other PP's child is a girl or vice versa.

I'm the PP. (V53, Q43, N49.)..My kid is a boy and not red-shirted. He has a late spring birthday. His gets all As, 5 on Parcc and 99% on Map, so I'm not really sure why he was rejected outright, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the number of boys? Or maybe they want a higher quant score for TPMS. Or, if you have 40 plus kids in a program with really similar scores, do you just pick names out of a hat?

My kid is a girl, with a late summer birthday (not red-shirted), with Q50 and N48, and 99% on MAPs - and she was outright rejected for TPMS. However, there is a boy in her class with off-the-charts MAPs (like, 300, or something, according to him) and he got into TPMS (and I suspect his CogAT are similarly high). So, no, they don't just 'pick names out of the hat', they compare children within the same MS cluster. So it's likely that other kids at your DC"s program just scored higher.

Can the two posters above please share the National and local percentiles for each of this scores? I think that will help unravel what’s going on, which I am convinced is at least partially due to age.

I'm not one of those PPs but based on skimming other scores posted everything posted should be 99th percentile. Not sure about the 43Q which may be 97th-99th?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Can the two posters above please share the National and local percentiles for each of this scores? I think that will help unravel what’s going on, which I am convinced is at least partially due to age.

I don't know PP but the two kids who got in from our local ES had similar raw scores according to DC. One has a late summer birthday and the other has an early fall. I think August for the first and September for the second (DC is friends with both and has been to the birthday parties). No one is "red-shirted." They were both just on the edge of the cut off with the one child being almost a year older.

[Anonymous]

One factor I haven't seen folks mention in a few pages is "number attempted."

The might explain some of the differences in percentiles between kids who appear to have the same number correct.

54 correct out of 54 attempted is different than 54 correct out of all 64 attempted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can the two posters above please share the National and local percentiles for each of this scores? I think that will help unravel what’s going on, which I am convinced is at least partially due to age.

I don't know PP but the two kids who got in from our local ES had similar raw scores according to DC. One has a late summer birthday and the other has an early fall. I think August for the first and September for the second (DC is friends with both and has been to the birthday parties). No one is "red-shirted." They were both just on the edge of the cut off with the one child being almost a year older.

Are parents really sharing the exact scores for each of the sections with their kids and the kids then sharing them with their classmates??!! I’ve told my kid nothing more than he scored “very well” and that he was admitted to the program. No one at his school is talking about it. If anyone else got in they haven’t shared it with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can the two posters above please share the National and local percentiles for each of this scores? I think that will help unravel what’s going on, which I am convinced is at least partially due to age.

I don't know PP but the two kids who got in from our local ES had similar raw scores according to DC. One has a late summer birthday and the other has an early fall. I think August for the first and September for the second (DC is friends with both and has been to the birthday parties). No one is "red-shirted." They were both just on the edge of the cut off with the one child being almost a year older.

Are parents really sharing the exact scores for each of the sections with their kids and the kids then sharing them with their classmates??!! I’ve told my kid nothing more than he scored “very well” and that he was admitted to the program. No one at his school is talking about it. If anyone else got in they haven’t shared it with him.

+1 My child is in a regional CES and they ARE sharing results (to my chagrin) but my child would have no idea of their raw score, in part because I don't think they can contextualize that "only nine wrong" is actually a perfectly respectable score!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can the two posters above please share the National and local percentiles for each of this scores? I think that will help unravel what’s going on, which I am convinced is at least partially due to age.

I don't know PP but the two kids who got in from our local ES had similar raw scores according to DC. One has a late summer birthday and the other has an early fall. I think August for the first and September for the second (DC is friends with both and has been to the birthday parties). No one is "red-shirted." They were both just on the edge of the cut off with the one child being almost a year older.

Are parents really sharing the exact scores for each of the sections with their kids and the kids then sharing them with their classmates??!! I’ve told my kid nothing more than he scored “very well” and that he was admitted to the program. No one at his school is talking about it. If anyone else got in they haven’t shared it with him.

+1 My child is in a regional CES and they ARE sharing results (to my chagrin) but my child would have no idea of their raw score, in part because I don't think they can contextualize that "only nine wrong" is actually a perfectly respectable score!

Not at our CES! My child got really upset this winter when his Map-M dipped two points from fall, and that was when I realized we've shared too many scored. Learned my lesson and just told him what PP did - you did well, not the best but YOUR best which is very good, and you're in the magnet.