CogAT scores are here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child got a 132 NNAT and 132 COGAT but we're in a high SES school, so my Indian-American kid who would probably get in at a Title I school won't get in at an Oakton pyramid school. This new system that's supposedly about equity is extremely unfair to Asian American families.

How do you figure that it’s unfair specifically to Asian American families?

My 132 white boy isn’t in pool in our high SES school either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child got a 132 NNAT and 132 COGAT but we're in a high SES school, so my Indian-American kid who would probably get in at a Title I school won't get in at an Oakton pyramid school. This new system that's supposedly about equity is extremely unfair to Asian American families.

The process is not "fair" to a kid with 132/132 in a high SES school, regardless his/her ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

We didn’t receive anything today in their Thursday recorder or on SIS. Has anyone else not recieved scores yet?

[Anonymous]

No scores for us

[Anonymous]

Pool letter but no scores

[Anonymous]

The CoGAT explanation is interesting. Does anyone have any insight into a child who does great in math but not so great in verbal? Is a child with a near perfect math score but poor verbal score going to be rejected because they can't handle the extra writing in AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The CoGAT explanation is interesting. Does anyone have any insight into a child who does great in math but not so great in verbal? Is a child with a near perfect math score but poor verbal score going to be rejected because they can't handle the extra writing in AAP?

Assuming your child's math is in stanine 9, How poor is verbal? stanine 7-8 is still above average, even it is "relatively" poor. 4-6 is average, can still make it if his family is non-native speaker, I am speculating, since so many kids in AAP are from non-native language family.

[Anonymous]

What is a high SES school? How do I know ours is a high/low/mid SES School?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is a high SES school? How do I know ours is a high/low/mid SES School?

SES = Social Economic Status. If a school zone has many apartments/townhomes, i.e. cheap housing, it is usually a low SES school. Places like Annandale, Reston, Herndon. High SES schools are in places with expensive single family homes, e.g. Mclean, Great Falls, Vienna etc.

One way to find out is the percentage of students qualify for free / reduced school lunch. If more than 40% of students qualify for free/reduced lunch, they can ask for Title 1 funding. That's what's called Title 1 school, definitely low SES.

[Anonymous]

FYI- we have scores posted in SIS under test history. What's weird is my kid who is much stronger in reading than math scored 11 points higher on the quant section. I wish they wouldn't use pictures for a VERBAL section; I just know they would have done better there if actual reading were involved.

[Anonymous]

Same thing here. Child reads and comprehends and scored 20 points lower on verbal.

[Anonymous]

Mine got 132 on 2 sections of the Cogat and the same VQN but isn’t in pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI- we have scores posted in SIS under test history. What's weird is my kid who is much stronger in reading than math scored 11 points higher on the quant section. I wish they wouldn't use pictures for a VERBAL section; I just know they would have done better there if actual reading were involved.

Same...it's intentional though...to make it easier for non-readers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Same thing here. Child reads and comprehends and scored 20 points lower on verbal.

It’s not really all that surprising and this is pretty common. The verbal section of the CogAT is known to be harder than the quantitative section. Thus, what you are seeing says less about your kids relative abilities and more about the CogAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The scores is good, OP. It certainly isn't going to hurt your kid. The issue is that they no longer place much emphasis on the scores. The committee takes the GBRS more seriously.

Ultimately it is an advanced program, not a gifted program and, in a way, the GBRS measures the likelihood of success in an advanced program. Clearly kids with strong executive functions do well on GBRS and get into AAP even if their score is in the 120s. If your child scores 140 but has a mediocre GBRS, she won't get in.

It wasn't like this ten-fifteen years ago. Back then, most kids in-pool were pretty much in.

It really doesn't, though. Years ago, my kid tested at multiple years above grade level in all domains and way above the 99th percentile cutoff in both math and reading iready tests. He got perfect scores on the two academic portions of the GBRS, but still got poor scores in the "Creativity" and "Motivation" parts of the GBRS. The teacher only viewed kids as "motivated" if they asked for extra busywork and took a lot of time on coloring sheets. If they instead were studying things on their own or reading very advanced for grade level books, the teacher viewed them as unmotivated. Likewise, if they didn't create pretty artwork, she viewed the kid as uncreative.

If they truly wanted to measure likelihood of success in an advanced program, the best measurement would be whether the kid is advanced based on end-of-year/beginning-of-year tests, DRA, iready, or some other achievement test.

PP you are quoting. I 100% agree with you. The thing is, whatever the questions they allegedly rate, they don't seem to be rating them. There is clearly a preference for the strong executive function busy-work kid over the disorganized brainy type. This is what I meant about it not really being a gifted program. They are looking for kids who will succeed in AAP as it is now, which is a bit advanced, not that much, and lots and lots more busywork.

I wish they didn't keep promoting the silly "does your kid need AAP" line. This is not a gifted program that teaches kids in unusual ways, geared toward out-of-the-box thinkers. It's as traditional as they come, there is just A LOT of busy work.

I know everyone will generalize from their particular situation but I have an age range of ages and I see how much the selection has changed over the years. Years ago, a strong score would pretty much get you in and a strong teacher evaluation could bump someone with a weak score. Now, a strong score is simply much less relevant and on the flip side, there are loads of kids who "thrive" with weaker scores in part because everyone is being selected for this particular program.