In pool email just came

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC in Haycock with NNAT 160. We received the email at 7 pm.

I wondered about last year's NNAT scores and whether they mis-normed it (or whatever the right statistical error term is!). My kid is also Haycock and scored 159. Kid is bright, but scores like 159 or 160 make me wonder what went wrong with the scoring because I doubt two kids in a class of approximately 100 students could be getting 159 and 160. And this is only the two of us admitting that our kids are 2 graders at Haycock. I wonder how many of these ridiculously high scores there are for those who took the NNAT in April 2021.

(Hopefully the central committee won't connect the dots and scratch their heads and just assume both our kids are super bright. :lol

the cogat score will help sort out that error if there was one. i remember someone else also posted that their child had a 160 and questioned whether to have her kid sit for the cogat on a different thread. seems like quite a few scores in the exceptional range on the nnat for last year.

[Anonymous]

Number 4: Son scored 160.

[Anonymous]

NNAT has a low ceiling, way too many kids scoring super high, and it’s very easily prepped. All of these are known issues with the test. It’s also why kids who are in pool on NNAT but not CogAT often are rejected.

[Anonymous]

Cogat is an easier test than the nnat

[Anonymous]

yikes. this may also explain why a 137 nnat didn't make pool. they are likely basing the in-pool on both scores and the nnat pool score is higher given the scores people are posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yikes. this may also explain why a 137 nnat didn't make pool. they are likely basing the in-pool on both scores and the nnat pool score is higher given the scores people are posting.

Yeah, great. I thought my kid did okay with a 125 (which was supposed to be 95th percentile).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NNAT has a low ceiling, way too many kids scoring super high, and it’s very easily prepped. All of these are known issues with the test. It’s also why kids who are in pool on NNAT but not CogAT often are rejected.

yes maybe but I don't recall seeing these sorts of exceptional scoring in previous years postings. in the 155+ range is a very small percentage of population and certainly should be less than a handful for all of FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Did all of you 160/159 folks get emails tonight?

[Anonymous]

Yes. This is the second Haycock parent with the 159 kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yikes. this may also explain why a 137 nnat didn't make pool. they are likely basing the in-pool on both scores and the nnat pool score is higher given the scores people are posting.

I think this is exactly what happened. There is a higher NNAT pool given the scores. Those with the really high NNAT were in pool. Those with under some high cut-off, didn't make the pool based on NNAT. The high NNAT cut-off would make sense if a lot of kids were in the 1SD or 2SD range which seems to be the case.

Now I'm really curious about the COGAT score.

[Anonymous]

I have a child with 152 NNAT. No COGAT score. Siblings in AAP with high COGAT. One had 155 NNAT and other 128 NNAT.

[Anonymous]

The high NNAT scores mean schools like Haycock will have a high cutoff. I wouldn’t be surprised to see very high scores in Cogat too. It will be harder to get in AAP with borderline scores. It’s similar policy to what they did in TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The high NNAT scores mean schools like Haycock will have a high cutoff. I wouldn’t be surprised to see very high scores in Cogat too. It will be harder to get in AAP with borderline scores. It’s similar policy to what they did in TJ.

I thought that they weren’t supposed to be raising the cut-off scores, only allowing lower cut-offs at certain schools. Knowing the number of kids that do test prep at some schools, it’s really unfair.

[Anonymous]

Pure speculation, but they wanted to ditch NNAT right? No way they're solely basing scores on COGAT is there? People would riot I'm sure.

Not sure how 137 isn't in-pool.

[Anonymous]

They are allowing low scores way below 132 cutoff ( 125 or even less) from lower performing schools to increase the number of URMs. So, it’s fair to increase the cutoff in high performing schools like Haycock and other Vienna, great falls and McLean schools.
And they say AAP has no admission limit. There is a cap. To take few more students from low performing schools they have to let go some deserving bright kids from high performing schools. Welcome to the country and county of Equity!