Fcps - NNAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Admission process is a mystery. What was your child COAGAT and NNAT score? What kind of work samples included in file?

Already stated. 97th percentile on CogAT. NNAT was good but not great. GBRS was 15. Grades were great. Child was in advanced math and reading a grade level beyond. Child has been receiving Level II since K. AART thought that the work samples were great if they were actually read for content. My kid has very sloppy handwriting, so samples don't "look" good if they're only given a brief glance. My kid is also a somewhat poor speller, which shouldn't matter but clearly does.

Anonymous wrote:
If your child did not get in there could be other reasons that you are not sharing.

If there are other reasons, I'm not sharing them because I have no idea what they are. It's not like the committee tells you why your child was not admitted. The AART was surprised that my child was rejected, in light of the other children from the same school who were admitted with much weaker files. The best explanation I was given for the apparent inconsistencies in admissions is that the same 6 people aren't reviewing all of the files. So, one child might be reviewed by a panel who tends to be more lenient, and another might be reviewed by one that is more strict. The only other explanation I was given is that the committee isn't exactly reading the work samples, so the poor handwriting and a misspelling in the first sentence might have been a deal breaker.

I'm just surprised that the central committee would override the feelings of the local committee (the ones who actually know the child) when the test scores are still very good.

This is interesting. I am the parent of a child with 96 percentile child who also did not get in, also received pullouts since forever, advanced math and reading etc. My child also has very messy handwriting and a fine motor delay. I have been wondering how much they may have hurt him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. The process isn't arbitrary. SIX committee members review the file before it gets admitted and that doesn't even mean for those that have 3 yes'...in which case 12 will end up reviewing it. Except for the sixth person, ALL REVIEWS ARE BLIND (as in, they have no idea what the other committee members were recommending regarding admission.

One careless mistake doesn't make a "huge difference." Lots of careless mistakes can make a huge difference OR maybe the kid legitimately missed several questions and then had a careless mistake and that affected things. One mistake? GMAFB

You seem unreasonably worked up and defensive over this. Was your child one of the one who had low test scores and somehow got in, making you cling to some notion the AAP panel is perfect and recognized some special giftedness in your child or something?

1. Every process in which someone holistically reviews someone else's application or resume is imperfect. No one has come up with the "right" formula for college admissions or job applications, and even if the SAME person is reviewing things, that person's opinions can be swayed by how early in the process they're reviewing the file, how strong the previous file was, or nebulous things in the file that they "relate to" or don't (case in point: The AART told everyone not to say that their kids needed AAP because they were bored or school was too easy, since that apparently negatively disposes the panel members toward your child). Much like college admissions, the AAP panel is AT BEST spending 5 minutes reviewing each file, which means they're making a snap judgement. Why do you assume that the AAP system is flawless when nothing else can manage to be so? Even the AAP panel seems to understand that there's a reasonable error rate in the process. If not, they wouldn't allow for appeals or admit anyone on appeal.

2. My kid had a 130 SAS on one section with only 3 incorrect answers out of 52 problems (actually, 2 incorrect and 1 unanswered). One more correct answer would have led to a 135+ on that section. Since the composite was just a hair under the in-pool cutoff, that one question could have made a huge difference. Kids generally don't get rejected with 98th percentile CogAT and high GBRS, but apparently they can be with 97th percentile CogAT and the same GBRS.

There are no fixed number of seats for AAP admission. FCPS decides the cut-off score based on "whatever" the criteria at that time. If Cogat score of 98th percentile is the base then that is the bottom-line. If they lower requirements to 97th percentile then parents of 96th percentile would question why not their kids and so on.

I don't think anyone has argued about the in-pool cutoff. The point people are making is that there is no "bottom line." Kids who are in pool do not get in, kids who are far below the in pool scores do get in, kids who are just below the in pool scores do not get in, and so on... There is no transparency to the process and it seems incredibly inconsistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re the topic of prepping for the NNAT, I found this article. It's from 2013, but it does imply that prepping "artificially" raises NNAT scores. Significantly.

https://nycgiftedandtalented.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/nnat-test-score-distribution/

I am not sold that they were prepping as opposed to having high IQ parents like DC area ??

That's Lake Wobegon Syndrome at its finest. Fairfax county is no more special than any other higher income, urban area. Every urban area seems to be in the same situation, where an overabundance of kids score very highly on these tests, and then the people act as if their area is just brighter than everywhere else. Whatever "extra brightness" we might have is offset by the prevalence of elite private schools. It's ridiculous to imagine that kids in NYC or silicon valley, or Seattle, etc. are all prepping their ways to high scores, and yet people here aren't prepping- they're just smarter.

This area is filled with prep schools, which wouldn't exist if they weren't profitable. A lot of people at my kids' bus stop have talked about workbooks and prepping. The testingmom site listed in the article wouldn't exist if it weren't profitable. A ton of prep books are available on Amazon. If you think prepping isn't widespread, you're naive. Prepping also tends to improve scores on pretty much everything. Heck, why do you think major IQ tests keep their materials very private and will invalidate your results if they think you've prepped? It's clearly because prepping will increase scores. The NNAT and CogAT are no more special than any other tests.

I'm from NYC and parents hire tutors to prep their 3-4 year olds. NYC's GT system starts in kindergarten so these kids are taking these tests at age 4. Unlike in VA, there is no shame in it. Everyone preps. You would not even know to test your child if you were not an involved parent and it is a self selecting group. AAP in FCPS is far more inclusive.

Is it more inclusive?? My friends from NY have told me that the cutoff for GT in NYC is 90th percentile. That is MUCH lower than here.

Your friends must not live in Manhattan. It is far less inclusive because they have limited space. Cutoff may be lower but less kids admitted due to pure size of classes and buildings. At least in FCPS, they can make space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Admission process is a mystery. What was your child COAGAT and NNAT score? What kind of work samples included in file?

Already stated. 97th percentile on CogAT. NNAT was good but not great. GBRS was 15. Grades were great. Child was in advanced math and reading a grade level beyond. Child has been receiving Level II since K. AART thought that the work samples were great if they were actually read for content. My kid has very sloppy handwriting, so samples don't "look" good if they're only given a brief glance. My kid is also a somewhat poor speller, which shouldn't matter but clearly does.

Anonymous wrote:
If your child did not get in there could be other reasons that you are not sharing.

If there are other reasons, I'm not sharing them because I have no idea what they are. It's not like the committee tells you why your child was not admitted. The AART was surprised that my child was rejected, in light of the other children from the same school who were admitted with much weaker files. The best explanation I was given for the apparent inconsistencies in admissions is that the same 6 people aren't reviewing all of the files. So, one child might be reviewed by a panel who tends to be more lenient, and another might be reviewed by one that is more strict. The only other explanation I was given is that the committee isn't exactly reading the work samples, so the poor handwriting and a misspelling in the first sentence might have been a deal breaker.

I'm just surprised that the central committee would override the feelings of the local committee (the ones who actually know the child) when the test scores are still very good.

This is interesting. I am the parent of a child with 96 percentile child who also did not get in, also received pullouts since forever, advanced math and reading etc. My child also has very messy handwriting and a fine motor delay. I have been wondering how much they may have hurt him.

I don't know. My kid has messy handwriting and receives OT but had a 98% which was in pool, and did get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. The process isn't arbitrary. SIX committee members review the file before it gets admitted and that doesn't even mean for those that have 3 yes'...in which case 12 will end up reviewing it. Except for the sixth person, ALL REVIEWS ARE BLIND (as in, they have no idea what the other committee members were recommending regarding admission.

One careless mistake doesn't make a "huge difference." Lots of careless mistakes can make a huge difference OR maybe the kid legitimately missed several questions and then had a careless mistake and that affected things. One mistake? GMAFB

You seem unreasonably worked up and defensive over this. Was your child one of the one who had low test scores and somehow got in, making you cling to some notion the AAP panel is perfect and recognized some special giftedness in your child or something?

1. Every process in which someone holistically reviews someone else's application or resume is imperfect. No one has come up with the "right" formula for college admissions or job applications, and even if the SAME person is reviewing things, that person's opinions can be swayed by how early in the process they're reviewing the file, how strong the previous file was, or nebulous things in the file that they "relate to" or don't (case in point: The AART told everyone not to say that their kids needed AAP because they were bored or school was too easy, since that apparently negatively disposes the panel members toward your child). Much like college admissions, the AAP panel is AT BEST spending 5 minutes reviewing each file, which means they're making a snap judgement. Why do you assume that the AAP system is flawless when nothing else can manage to be so? Even the AAP panel seems to understand that there's a reasonable error rate in the process. If not, they wouldn't allow for appeals or admit anyone on appeal.

2. My kid had a 130 SAS on one section with only 3 incorrect answers out of 52 problems (actually, 2 incorrect and 1 unanswered). One more correct answer would have led to a 135+ on that section. Since the composite was just a hair under the in-pool cutoff, that one question could have made a huge difference. Kids generally don't get rejected with 98th percentile CogAT and high GBRS, but apparently they can be with 97th percentile CogAT and the same GBRS.

There are no fixed number of seats for AAP admission. FCPS decides the cut-off score based on "whatever" the criteria at that time. If Cogat score of 98th percentile is the base then that is the bottom-line. If they lower requirements to 97th percentile then parents of 96th percentile would question why not their kids and so on.

I don't think anyone has argued about the in-pool cutoff. The point people are making is that there is no "bottom line." Kids who are in pool do not get in, kids who are far below the in pool scores do get in, kids who are just below the in pool scores do not get in, and so on... There is no transparency to the process and it seems incredibly inconsistent.

I feel committee might be looking at equal representation from all ES. Hence some kids with lower schools could get in where as kids don't. We see this everyday in good school (I think TJ does that too) admission policies.

[Anonymous]

How do 15-20% of FCPS get admitted into AAP when the cutoff is 97%? Even if the 88-96 kids appeal, it still doesn’t add up.

Or do more than 3% score 97 or higher? Am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do 15-20% of FCPS get admitted into AAP when the cutoff is 97%? Even if the 88-96 kids appeal, it still doesn’t add up.

Or do more than 3% score 97 or higher? Am I missing something?

So I can only speak to my kid (young for the grade kid) who was in pool. 98% for age, 91% for FCPS, and 94% for national. So let's say then that it looks like 10% of kids (by FCPS percentile) are in pool. Then other kids get in who weren't in pool and that probably gets you to 15-20%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do 15-20% of FCPS get admitted into AAP when the cutoff is 97%? Even if the 88-96 kids appeal, it still doesn’t add up.

Or do more than 3% score 97 or higher? Am I missing something?

So I can only speak to my kid (young for the grade kid) who was in pool. 98% for age, 91% for FCPS, and 94% for national. So let's say then that it looks like 10% of kids (by FCPS percentile) are in pool. Then other kids get in who weren't in pool and that probably gets you to 15-20%.

What does this mean? Shouldn't the national score and the age score be the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do 15-20% of FCPS get admitted into AAP when the cutoff is 97%? Even if the 88-96 kids appeal, it still doesn’t add up.

Or do more than 3% score 97 or higher? Am I missing something?

So I can only speak to my kid (young for the grade kid) who was in pool. 98% for age, 91% for FCPS, and 94% for national. So let's say then that it looks like 10% of kids (by FCPS percentile) are in pool. Then other kids get in who weren't in pool and that probably gets you to 15-20%.

What does this mean? Shouldn't the national score and the age score be the same?

No - most second graders taking the test were older than my kid. That was percentile among all second graders nationally, I believe. Everyone gets the same percentile info with their cogat scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do 15-20% of FCPS get admitted into AAP when the cutoff is 97%? Even if the 88-96 kids appeal, it still doesn’t add up.

Or do more than 3% score 97 or higher? Am I missing something?

And that brings us right back to the prevalence of test prepping. Yes, 10% of the kids in fcps end up with scores in the top 2%, at least partially due to prepping. This happens in every affluent city that has gifted programs or access to more desirable schools based on test results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Admission process is a mystery. What was your child COAGAT and NNAT score? What kind of work samples included in file?

Already stated. 97th percentile on CogAT. NNAT was good but not great. GBRS was 15. Grades were great. Child was in advanced math and reading a grade level beyond. Child has been receiving Level II since K. AART thought that the work samples were great if they were actually read for content. My kid has very sloppy handwriting, so samples don't "look" good if they're only given a brief glance. My kid is also a somewhat poor speller, which shouldn't matter but clearly does.

Anonymous wrote:
If your child did not get in there could be other reasons that you are not sharing.

If there are other reasons, I'm not sharing them because I have no idea what they are. It's not like the committee tells you why your child was not admitted. The AART was surprised that my child was rejected, in light of the other children from the same school who were admitted with much weaker files. The best explanation I was given for the apparent inconsistencies in admissions is that the same 6 people aren't reviewing all of the files. So, one child might be reviewed by a panel who tends to be more lenient, and another might be reviewed by one that is more strict. The only other explanation I was given is that the committee isn't exactly reading the work samples, so the poor handwriting and a misspelling in the first sentence might have been a deal breaker.

I'm just surprised that the central committee would override the feelings of the local committee (the ones who actually know the child) when the test scores are still very good.

Why is this a mystery that this child wasn't admitted. He had one score that was close, percentage-wise, to the cut off but was NOT at or above the cut off. He had one score that was clearly not close to the cut off or mom would have posted about that. So he has a single score that confirms he should be admitted. It has been said 1000s of times before on these boards: they are looking for at least 2 data points to point towards admission unless the kid has a very high WISC.

The poster says, "the central committee would override the feelings of the local committee (the ones who actually know the child) when the test scores are still very good." Neither test score was good enough (in pool). This denial makes perfect sense. (If it didn't, then wouldn't the admission info. say that: a) a high GBRS conquers all else; and/or b) good but not in pool scores are not so important if the GBRS is a 15 or higher. That isn't what the admission info. says.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Admission process is a mystery. What was your child COAGAT and NNAT score? What kind of work samples included in file?

Already stated. 97th percentile on CogAT. NNAT was good but not great. GBRS was 15. Grades were great. Child was in advanced math and reading a grade level beyond. Child has been receiving Level II since K. AART thought that the work samples were great if they were actually read for content. My kid has very sloppy handwriting, so samples don't "look" good if they're only given a brief glance. My kid is also a somewhat poor speller, which shouldn't matter but clearly does.

Anonymous wrote:
If your child did not get in there could be other reasons that you are not sharing.

If there are other reasons, I'm not sharing them because I have no idea what they are. It's not like the committee tells you why your child was not admitted. The AART was surprised that my child was rejected, in light of the other children from the same school who were admitted with much weaker files. The best explanation I was given for the apparent inconsistencies in admissions is that the same 6 people aren't reviewing all of the files. So, one child might be reviewed by a panel who tends to be more lenient, and another might be reviewed by one that is more strict. The only other explanation I was given is that the committee isn't exactly reading the work samples, so the poor handwriting and a misspelling in the first sentence might have been a deal breaker.

I'm just surprised that the central committee would override the feelings of the local committee (the ones who actually know the child) when the test scores are still very good.

Generally, it has been observed that Cogat and NNAT cut-off is 132-133 for in-pool consideration. Since 1/3rd or more in-pool student gets rejected actual score might be higher for admission. Was your child referred by School for in-pool consideration? Your DC GBRS is strong but I think one needs good score in either one of the test and GBRS.

Have you obtain the GBRS file copy? It should show sample submitted. AAP does emphasis on language art. I am surprised to find school submitted sample that had 'poor handwriting and a misspelling'! Generally student (not all) in-pool are already getting Level II service in language art and math so they are advanced and sample submitted are of high quality.

I think all 6 committee member independently review the file and their input is consider for final decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why is this a mystery that this child wasn't admitted. He had one score that was close, percentage-wise, to the cut off but was NOT at or above the cut off. He had one score that was clearly not close to the cut off or mom would have posted about that. So he has a single score that confirms he should be admitted. It has been said 1000s of times before on these boards: they are looking for at least 2 data points to point towards admission unless the kid has a very high WISC.

The poster says, "the central committee would override the feelings of the local committee (the ones who actually know the child) when the test scores are still very good." Neither test score was good enough (in pool). This denial makes perfect sense. (If it didn't, then wouldn't the admission info. say that: a) a high GBRS conquers all else; and/or b) good but not in pool scores are not so important if the GBRS is a 15 or higher. That isn't what the admission info. says.)

PP here with the rejected kid and later admitted on appeals: Look, I'm an engineer and would be perfectly fine with a logical, quantitative system for admission, even if my own child didn't make it in. If the standard were a high GBRS + in-pool scores or a high WISC, my kid would not be in (even after appeals), and that would be fine. If kids under that threshold needed proof of working substantially above grade level to get in, that would be fine. The problem is that a LOT of kids with all scores lower than my kid and with classroom performance lower than my kid got in. The AART at the school said that almost everyone gets in with a 120+ CogAT and school support. Every kid in my neighborhood got in first round, most of them through parent referrals. Some even had scores lower than 120. Some of them weren't above grade level in math and/or reading. All of them are bright, but none of them are academic superstars or gifted in any way. Again, what is the committee seeing in those 10 seconds of glancing at work samples or parent letters to override the really meh test scores + the lack of advanced math or lack of advanced reading? Is that difference actually a substantive one in the merits of the children, or does it have more to do with random luck in being reviewed by a more lenient committee? And why is a 130 CogAT apparently viewed as being the same as a 120 or 115, but vastly different than a 132, even though the difference between a 130 and a 120 would be quite a few correct answers, whereas the difference between a 130 and 132 is one correct answer?

FWIW, my child is decidedly above average in the AAP classes, got pass advanced on the SOLs, is cruising through the AAP math, and is getting good scores on math olympiad. A lot of the neighborhood kids are struggling with the math and didn't do very well on the SOLs. I don't think my child is gifted, and the only reason I think my child "needs AAP" is that pretty much every child above the 90th percentile who is a good student seems to be in AAP - except the ones who are rejected for whatever non-transparent reasons. I would be fine with AAP being much more exclusive, as long as all of the other bright but not gifted kids (like my kid) were sent back to base school along with my kid.

[Anonymous]

Omg..."my child is decidedly above average in the AAP classes." How do you know that? You have no idea. I even do the class work folders a few times a month an while I can see my kid's work compared to others', that's a snapshot of a few examples but nothing related to oral or group work or other work when I'm not there.

[Anonymous]

FCPS needs to start pursuing personalize learning like Loudoun is. If you are doing math in ALEKS, you can proceed at your own pace, regardless of which program you are in.