Are this year's CogAT scores age-adjusted or not?

[Anonymous]

Sorry. Should be "information," not "infuriating."

[Anonymous]

I am curious about the age adjusted thing. Your child will be in a classroom with the other kids of all ages and that will be who s/he has to keep up with, so why would they age adjust? I know they do on the national test, but this is for a different purpose. I know I'll get flamed but I'm genuinely curious.

Full disclosure: my kid is not in the pool (or even close) and age adjusting probably wouldn't have gotten her in anyway so I don't care either way. I'm just trying to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about the age adjusted thing. Your child will be in a classroom with the other kids of all ages and that will be who s/he has to keep up with, so why would they age adjust? I know they do on the national test, but this is for a different purpose. I know I'll get flamed but I'm genuinely curious.

Full disclosure: my kid is not in the pool (or even close) and age adjusting probably wouldn't have gotten her in anyway so I don't care either way. I'm just trying to understand.

So, it is OK that kids, who did not get in the pool because their NNAT and CogAT scores were not high enough, are parent-referred and can get in, and everyone says they can do as well as the rest of the in-pool kids. It's only the younger kids who have to demonstrate (through not age-adjusting tests that are designed to be age-adjusted) that they are as good as kids sometimes one year older. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

[Anonymous]

It sounds like it's not a huge difference anyway. If you kid is on the line, refer him or her and note that e test was not age normed. What's the big deal? If your kid is that stellar, presumably he or she will get a good GBRS and his or her NNAT is probably decent.
The whole thing doesn't hinge on one test. It's a package. Chill out and put together a good package. If your child really is AAP material, that shouldn't be hard to do. Everyone in the pool doesn't get in anyway, so having to refer isn't a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about the age adjusted thing. Your child will be in a classroom with the other kids of all ages and that will be who s/he has to keep up with, so why would they age adjust? I know they do on the national test, but this is for a different purpose. I know I'll get flamed but I'm genuinely curious.

Full disclosure: my kid is not in the pool (or even close) and age adjusting probably wouldn't have gotten her in anyway so I don't care either way. I'm just trying to understand.

So, it is OK that kids, who did not get in the pool because their NNAT and CogAT scores were not high enough, are parent-referred and can get in, and everyone says they can do as well as the rest of the in-pool kids. It's only the younger kids who have to demonstrate (through not age-adjusting tests that are designed to be age-adjusted) that they are as good as kids sometimes one year older. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

But you are assuming that most of the younger kids did not do well on the test. You don't know that.

It could quite possibly be the case that there were just as many young summer birthday kids who scored high enough to be in the pool as the red shirted summer birthday kids.

The only way your argument makes sense is if your young summer birthday child was around 90-94%. If they were lower, then norming for age probably wouldn't make a difference anyway.

[Anonymous]

PP, are you out of your mind? In what IQ based test do younger kids score equally to older ones? Those raising issues with the test here have every right to, it was bungled by those supposedly making it more fair and equitable to the process. Also, I am sick and tired of hearing those lecturing that it doesn't matter, just refer in, its a package deal, a percent here or there doesn't matter, etc. For many borderline kids, and there will be many, it does matter. Those who do not reach pool level scores will most likely have to take the WISC and appeal. This is an added burden and to many a cost that may not be affordable. Also, less informed parents may not even know the best way to mount an appeal.

On the other side, there are an equal number of red shirted kids who are benefiting at the cost of those who were not age adjusted up, and into the pool. An equal number of them would have to drop out for those younger ones who deserve to be in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, are you out of your mind? In what IQ based test do younger kids score equally to older ones? Those raising issues with the test here have every right to, it was bungled by those supposedly making it more fair and equitable to the process. Also, I am sick and tired of hearing those lecturing that it doesn't matter, just refer in, its a package deal, a percent here or there doesn't matter, etc. For many borderline kids, and there will be many, it does matter. Those who do not reach pool level scores will most likely have to take the WISC and appeal. This is an added burden and to many a cost that may not be affordable. Also, less informed parents may not even know the best way to mount an appeal.

On the other side, there are an equal number of red shirted kids who are benefiting at the cost of those who were not age adjusted up, and into the pool. An equal number of them would have to drop out for those younger ones who deserve to be in.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, are you out of your mind? In what IQ based test do younger kids score equally to older ones? Those raising issues with the test here have every right to, it was bungled by those supposedly making it more fair and equitable to the process. Also, I am sick and tired of hearing those lecturing that it doesn't matter, just refer in, its a package deal, a percent here or there doesn't matter, etc. For many borderline kids, and there will be many, it does matter. Those who do not reach pool level scores will most likely have to take the WISC and appeal. This is an added burden and to many a cost that may not be affordable. Also, less informed parents may not even know the best way to mount an appeal.

On the other side, there are an equal number of red shirted kids who are benefiting at the cost of those who were not age adjusted up, and into the pool. An equal number of them would have to drop out for those younger ones who deserve to be in.

You are assuming that the kids who started school a year late are more advanced than everyone else.

Most of the people I know who choose to do this, do so because their kids are a bit behind, either socially or academically, or both.

Just because they are older does not necessarily mean that they scored better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, are you out of your mind? In what IQ based test do younger kids score equally to older ones? Those raising issues with the test here have every right to, it was bungled by those supposedly making it more fair and equitable to the process. Also, I am sick and tired of hearing those lecturing that it doesn't matter, just refer in, its a package deal, a percent here or there doesn't matter, etc. For many borderline kids, and there will be many, it does matter. Those who do not reach pool level scores will most likely have to take the WISC and appeal. This is an added burden and to many a cost that may not be affordable. Also, less informed parents may not even know the best way to mount an appeal.

On the other side, there are an equal number of red shirted kids who are benefiting at the cost of those who were not age adjusted up, and into the pool. An equal number of them would have to drop out for those younger ones who deserve to be in.

Just saying, even if your young July child's scores were normed for age, If they scored in the 60s-80s, no age norming will make a difference. They still will not be in the qualifying range of 95%. Age norming does not raise a score 15-30 points, when you are basically talking about a 15 month spread. That is a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, are you out of your mind? In what IQ based test do younger kids score equally to older ones? Those raising issues with the test here have every right to, it was bungled by those supposedly making it more fair and equitable to the process. Also, I am sick and tired of hearing those lecturing that it doesn't matter, just refer in, its a package deal, a percent here or there doesn't matter, etc. For many borderline kids, and there will be many, it does matter. Those who do not reach pool level scores will most likely have to take the WISC and appeal. This is an added burden and to many a cost that may not be affordable. Also, less informed parents may not even know the best way to mount an appeal.

On the other side, there are an equal number of red shirted kids who are benefiting at the cost of those who were not age adjusted up, and into the pool. An equal number of them would have to drop out for those younger ones who deserve to be in.

You are assuming that the kids who started school a year late are more advanced than everyone else.

Most of the people I know who choose to do this, do so because their kids are a bit behind, either socially or academically, or both.

Just because they are older does not necessarily mean that they scored better.

Ding ding ding!!! A rational and sound thinking poster has spoken! +1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, are you out of your mind? In what IQ based test do younger kids score equally to older ones? Those raising issues with the test here have every right to, it was bungled by those supposedly making it more fair and equitable to the process. Also, I am sick and tired of hearing those lecturing that it doesn't matter, just refer in, its a package deal, a percent here or there doesn't matter, etc. For many borderline kids, and there will be many, it does matter. Those who do not reach pool level scores will most likely have to take the WISC and appeal. This is an added burden and to many a cost that may not be affordable. Also, less informed parents may not even know the best way to mount an appeal.

On the other side, there are an equal number of red shirted kids who are benefiting at the cost of those who were not age adjusted up, and into the pool. An equal number of them would have to drop out for those younger ones who deserve to be in.

You are assuming that the kids who started school a year late are more advanced than everyone else.

Most of the people I know who choose to do this, do so because their kids are a bit behind, either socially or academically, or both.

Just because they are older does not necessarily mean that they scored better.

Then why is the NNAT and national CogAT tests age normalized within the grade level tests? Why is the WISC age adjusted? Why are IQ tests age adjusted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, are you out of your mind? In what IQ based test do younger kids score equally to older ones? Those raising issues with the test here have every right to, it was bungled by those supposedly making it more fair and equitable to the process. Also, I am sick and tired of hearing those lecturing that it doesn't matter, just refer in, its a package deal, a percent here or there doesn't matter, etc. For many borderline kids, and there will be many, it does matter. Those who do not reach pool level scores will most likely have to take the WISC and appeal. This is an added burden and to many a cost that may not be affordable. Also, less informed parents may not even know the best way to mount an appeal.

On the other side, there are an equal number of red shirted kids who are benefiting at the cost of those who were not age adjusted up, and into the pool. An equal number of them would have to drop out for those younger ones who deserve to be in.

Just saying, even if your young July child's scores were normed for age, If they scored in the 60s-80s, no age norming will make a difference. They still will not be in the qualifying range of 95%. Age norming does not raise a score 15-30 points, when you are basically talking about a 15 month spread. That is a fact.

We are speaking of those in the low 90's, not those who missed it by 20%. Come on, be real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, are you out of your mind? In what IQ based test do younger kids score equally to older ones? Those raising issues with the test here have every right to, it was bungled by those supposedly making it more fair and equitable to the process. Also, I am sick and tired of hearing those lecturing that it doesn't matter, just refer in, its a package deal, a percent here or there doesn't matter, etc. For many borderline kids, and there will be many, it does matter. Those who do not reach pool level scores will most likely have to take the WISC and appeal. This is an added burden and to many a cost that may not be affordable. Also, less informed parents may not even know the best way to mount an appeal.

On the other side, there are an equal number of red shirted kids who are benefiting at the cost of those who were not age adjusted up, and into the pool. An equal number of them would have to drop out for those younger ones who deserve to be in.

Just saying, even if your young July child's scores were normed for age, If they scored in the 60s-80s, no age norming will make a difference. They still will not be in the qualifying range of 95%. Age norming does not raise a score 15-30 points, when you are basically talking about a 15 month spread. That is a fact.

We are speaking of those in the low 90's, not those who missed it by 20%. Come on, be real.

No, read the threads. There are many, many outraged parents who are upset about no age norming whose kids scored in the 60-80 range.

There have been very, very few posts by upset parents of kids who scored in the 90-95% range. Most of these have a qualifying NNAT, and say so in their posts. They are not expressing the same outrage as the ones who scored too low for it to make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, are you out of your mind? In what IQ based test do younger kids score equally to older ones? Those raising issues with the test here have every right to, it was bungled by those supposedly making it more fair and equitable to the process. Also, I am sick and tired of hearing those lecturing that it doesn't matter, just refer in, its a package deal, a percent here or there doesn't matter, etc. For many borderline kids, and there will be many, it does matter. Those who do not reach pool level scores will most likely have to take the WISC and appeal. This is an added burden and to many a cost that may not be affordable. Also, less informed parents may not even know the best way to mount an appeal.

On the other side, there are an equal number of red shirted kids who are benefiting at the cost of those who were not age adjusted up, and into the pool. An equal number of them would have to drop out for those younger ones who deserve to be in.

You are assuming that the kids who started school a year late are more advanced than everyone else.

Most of the people I know who choose to do this, do so because their kids are a bit behind, either socially or academically, or both.

Just because they are older does not necessarily mean that they scored better.

Then why is the NNAT and national CogAT tests age normalized within the grade level tests? Why is the WISC age adjusted? Why are IQ tests age adjusted?

Here's where you're misinformed. The same versions of the test are given to different grade levels. For example, the NNAT used to be given to Kindergartners in FCPS. It was the SAME test that was later given to second graders. Now it's given to first graders. The scores depend on the age of the kid that is taking the test. A kindergartner getting the same number correct would not get the same score as a second grader getting the same number correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To provide the parents with the "improvement" their kids can get with the age-norm score, I'm sharing the CogAT results my kid got from GMU. My kid is not in FCPS, so no flaming please.
CogAT took at 2nd grade, age 7y 10m. The national grade score percentile is 85/99/94/98, national age score percentile is 84/99/93/98.
So the 10 month age difference lowed two of the subset score 1 percentile.
On the other side, since the test was given in October, your Sept. kids probably can swing up 0.1 percentile, while the oldest kids of 7y 10m probably should swing down 1 percentile, even if the county didn't age-norm it and you want to put it in.

Oh yeah? How did you come up with .1 percentile? According to previous posts, a 45/48 NNAT raw score for a Nov. kid gave the same adjusted score as a 42/48 for a Sept. kid and the same percentile. Can you calculate the cumulative effect of such normalization on a composite score (CogAT) and the corresponding percentiles? No one said that a 60% would translate to an 80% but a 90% could go up to a 95% and that could make a difference for some kids...

Agree that 0.1 percentile per month of age does not seem like enough. If 0.1 percentile per month were accurate, I could have had my 4-year-old take the test this year too and receive a score only 3.6 lower than my 7-year-old DC. Or maybe the 4-year-old would have scored higher!

But thank you poster for sharing the scores and trying to help provide some perspective and numbers to go by.