It's official: CogAT scores are not age-adjusted this year!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is redshirt?

"Redshirting" is when you hold your kid back from starting kindergarten when they are first eligible. You wait a year. The kid ends up being the oldest in the class.

[Anonymous]

Thank you! I know some parents do that, even their kids are born in June and July

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One saying is that boys' development is slower than girls'. Do we need a gender-adjusted score too?

What about late bloomers? How can we adjust for that?

[Anonymous]

They should fix right now to give correct info for this test!

[Anonymous]

No matter how to adjust, there is no total fairness.

[Anonymous]

How about this original idea. Why don't they simply age adjust the test exactly the same way WISC does, the same way the NNAT does, and the same way the national CogAT does, and probably the same way the numerous other standardized national IQ based tests do? How about Fairfax County letting a reputable, established and clinically reviewed testing agency administer, grade, and scale the results? Wow, what a novel idea, letting professionals in the area of IQ testing conduct the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about this original idea. Why don't they simply age adjust the test exactly the same way WISC does, the same way the NNAT does, and the same way the national CogAT does, and probably the same way the numerous other standardized national IQ based tests do? How about Fairfax County letting a reputable, established and clinically reviewed testing agency administer, grade, and scale the results? Wow, what a novel idea, letting professionals in the area of IQ testing conduct the process.

Good idea. 130000 kids, $300 each, only $39M/year. Maybe if they sign a 100 year contract, they can get 20% discount. I only take 10% cut for the finders fee.
Unless pp can find a reputable, established and clinically reviewed testing agency do it for peanuts, or better yet for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this original idea. Why don't they simply age adjust the test exactly the same way WISC does, the same way the NNAT does, and the same way the national CogAT does, and probably the same way the numerous other standardized national IQ based tests do? How about Fairfax County letting a reputable, established and clinically reviewed testing agency administer, grade, and scale the results? Wow, what a novel idea, letting professionals in the area of IQ testing conduct the process.

Good idea. 130000 kids, $300 each, only $39M/year. Maybe if they sign a 100 year contract, they can get 20% discount. I only take 10% cut for the finders fee.
Unless pp can find a reputable, established and clinically reviewed testing agency do it for peanuts, or better yet for free.

What the hell are you talking about? The NNAT and the old CoGats were designed by national testing companies and and scored and normed by them as well. This is a bubble scanned computer graded process. I am not talking about individually administered WISC tests. Get a clue imbecile.

[Anonymous]

The whole reason fcps went to fat instead of cogat was to get a real percentile of fcps students in second grade, to get data relevant to fcps. You can't normalize a test on the national level when the universe consists only of fairfax kids. At best you could normalize the test for the FAT, but no guarantee there would be any statistical significance in the need to age adjust. In reality there is no coherence in the cogat and fat. If fcps wanted overinflated data, they would have just kept the old cogat scoring system.

[Anonymous]

"difference" 4 above

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole reason fcps went to fat instead of cogat was to get a real percentile of fcps students in second grade, to get data relevant to fcps. You can't normalize a test on the national level when the universe consists only of fairfax kids. At best you could normalize the test for the FAT, but no guarantee there would be any statistical significance in the need to age adjust. In reality there is no coherence in the cogat and fat. If fcps wanted overinflated data, they would have just kept the old cogat scoring system.

Says the voice of reason in a very unreasonable thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole reason fcps went to fat instead of cogat was to get a real percentile of fcps students in second grade, to get data relevant to fcps. You can't normalize a test on the national level when the universe consists only of fairfax kids. At best you could normalize the test for the FAT, but no guarantee there would be any statistical significance in the need to age adjust. In reality there is no coherence in the cogat and fat. If fcps wanted overinflated data, they would have just kept the old cogat scoring system.

Says the voice of reason in a very unreasonable thread.

So the two posters above, who are speaking "the voice of reason" are statisticians? 13,000 is a sample that is too small to age normalize? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I am not sure. Are you? If you do not know what you are talking about, please do not post statements without any scientific support but only conjecture. And if you don' t know what the OP is saying, do not agree and call it reasonable when you have no knowledge in the area.

[Anonymous]

Yes to question 1 and I clearly stated "at best you could normalize the test for the fat, but no guarantee there would be any statistical significance in the need to age adjust." Whats your verbal score?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One saying is that boys' development is slower than girls'. Do we need a gender-adjusted score too?

What about late bloomers? How can we adjust for that?

You can apply for AAP every year.

[Anonymous]

Stop expecting more and more from an excellent school system. You are draining the success out of it.