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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Regardless of the grades to which these tests are administered, they are normalized by month across the board. There is conjecture here that normalization is only necessary when the gap in age exceeds a grade level. That is just not consistent with nationalized IQ based tests, like the ones mentioned. I guess Fairfax County knows more than the historic IQ testing companies that have been administering, scoring, and developing IQ tests for decades.

So you are saying that the NNAT level A, B, C, D, etc. are all the same test? That is not true, each level has a differing number of questions in each of the four sections totaling 38 for each.

[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.

The reason is that the age effect is temporary -- as a PP mentioned age effect goes away around 4th grade -- so you could be keeping out kids who might lag initially but be fine in a year and stellar after that. And you could be letting in seeming stars who will fade in a year or two and be mediocre. That said, there will probably be a lasting effect from this placement now. Those with more potential/intelligence may forever be less than they could have been, and those with less ability may experience lifetime benefits from enrichment that they did not need or deserve the most. Read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

[Anonymous]

Everyone on this board should read that book. It would normalize a lot of the thinking on this topic.

[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.

The reason is that the age effect is temporary -- as a PP mentioned age effect goes away around 4th grade -- so you could be keeping out kids who might lag initially but be fine in a year and stellar after that. And you could be letting in seeming stars who will fade in a year or two and be mediocre. That said, there will probably be a lasting effect from this placement now. Those with more potential/intelligence may forever be less than they could have been, and those with less ability may experience lifetime benefits from enrichment that they did not need or deserve the most. Read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

Excellent response! The huge problam that FCPS created by not adjusting for age is twofold:
* firstly, the percentiles of younger kids (say, summer '05) are lower than what they should have been
* secondly, the percentiles of older kids (say, Fall of '04, or even earlier if they were redshirted) are higher than what they should have been, as they were now estimated in comparison to a different statistical population.
Now that's what I call a huge mess!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The reason is that the age effect is temporary -- as a PP mentioned age effect goes away around 4th grade -- so you could be keeping out kids who might lag initially but be fine in a year and stellar after that. And you could be letting in seeming stars who will fade in a year or two and be mediocre. That said, there will probably be a lasting effect from this placement now. Those with more potential/intelligence may forever be less than they could have been, and those with less ability may experience lifetime benefits from enrichment that they did not need or deserve the most. Read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

Excellent response! The huge problam that FCPS created by not adjusting for age is twofold:
* firstly, the percentiles of younger kids (say, summer '05) are lower than what they should have been
* secondly, the percentiles of older kids (say, Fall of '04, or even earlier if they were redshirted) are higher than what they should have been, as they were now estimated in comparison to a different statistical population.
Now that's what I call a huge mess!

It WOULD be "a huge mess" if Center eligibility were based on a single test score on a single day.

But guess what? IT IS NOT.

'Nuff said.

[Anonymous]

PP, that was about the dumbest comment I have heard on this topic yet. One of the cornerstone tests is tainted and you simply point to the NNAT taken in first grade as the fall back. Remember, many cannot afford the WISC, and many do not even understand how to mount an appeal. The school district failed many with their weak ass effort to build a better mouse trap.

[Anonymous]

Excellent response! The huge problam that FCPS created by not adjusting for age is twofold:
* firstly, the percentiles of younger kids (say, summer '05) are lower than what they should have been
* secondly, the percentiles of older kids (say, Fall of '04, or even earlier if they were redshirted) are higher than what they should have been, as they were now estimated in comparison to a different statistical population.
Now that's what I call a huge mess!

But you don't know that. Adjusting for age might have made very little difference in the numbers of young vs. old 2nd graders who qualified.

You just don't have enough information to make the charge that you are making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Excellent response! The huge problam that FCPS created by not adjusting for age is twofold:
* firstly, the percentiles of younger kids (say, summer '05) are lower than what they should have been
* secondly, the percentiles of older kids (say, Fall of '04, or even earlier if they were redshirted) are higher than what they should have been, as they were now estimated in comparison to a different statistical population.
Now that's what I call a huge mess!

But you don't know that. Adjusting for age might have made very little difference in the numbers of young vs. old 2nd graders who qualified.

You just don't have enough information to make the charge that you are making.

Not the OP but the above argument is really weak. Of course you do not know the magnitude of the effect of this issue, but since all such tests are age-normalized, someone smarter than FCPS must know that there is an effect. And even if this affects less 1% of the kids, it's still more than 100 kids (plus it changes the percentiles for everyone). Otherwise, since no one knows how kids will score, none of these tests would be age-normalized, because nobody would know what the effect might be. Accordingly, we don't know that 3rd grades would do better than 2nd graders in such tests, so let's give them all the same test and not age-adjust... Let's see what happens then!

[Anonymous]

Since making the pool based on test scores does not guarantee anything to begin with in regard to aap acceptance, age adjusting is irrelevant.
In the past 40% of non pool kids have made it in AAP. Its laughable to think a couple of percentile points would make any difference in the evaluation process.

[Anonymous]

ITA with pp. If a child needs the AAP class, it will be obvious to the teachers and the test scores will not be on the cusp regardless of age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ITA with pp. If a child needs the AAP class, it will be obvious to the teachers and the test scores will not be on the cusp regardless of age.

Riiight. With about 17% of kids getting in AAP, the program could probable handle another 20% of the fcps population considering how watered down AAP is to begin with. Granted it might be "obvious" for the top 10% of kids but outside of that not so obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, that was about the dumbest comment I have heard on this topic yet. One of the cornerstone tests is tainted and you simply point to the NNAT taken in first grade as the fall back. Remember, many cannot afford the WISC, and many do not even understand how to mount an appeal. The school district failed many with their weak ass effort to build a better mouse trap.

Where the heck do you dream up this stuff? Now we have a "cornerstone" test and it is "tainted"?!?

Sheesh, lady -- you REALLY have to get a freakin' grip on yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Excellent response! The huge problam that FCPS created by not adjusting for age is twofold:
* firstly, the percentiles of younger kids (say, summer '05) are lower than what they should have been
* secondly, the percentiles of older kids (say, Fall of '04, or even earlier if they were redshirted) are higher than what they should have been, as they were now estimated in comparison to a different statistical population.
Now that's what I call a huge mess!

I agree, this is an issue. Yes, the parents can still refer, and yes, being in the pool doesn't mean the committee will select the child. But it still makes sense to expect the test to be age adjusted. I have a 3rd grader with a fall birthday and a 2nd grader with a summer birthday and I can see a difference in having the older vs. younger child for their grade. My current 2nd grader with the summer birthday got a 90 CogAT but got in the pool with her 99 percentile NNAT score. I imagine the GRBS will be important to her application.

[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?

+1000. FCPS bungled the FFX CogAT. They ought to age norm it. I would say pure incompetence and may try to cover up by *sacrificing* younger kids. Please call the AART and ask them to pass on the age norming issue to the Central Screening committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1000. FCPS bungled the FFX CogAT. They ought to age norm it. I would say pure incompetence and may try to cover up by *sacrificing* younger kids. Please call the AART and ask them to pass on the age norming issue to the Central Screening committee.

Does anybody really know if the test was age normed or not? Perhaps it can't be since there's no national sample to compare against.