132 Composite-- CogAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the age adjusted scores, 129 composite is the 97th percentile and not in. So well under 3% of the test takers would qualify.

Either they are trying to drastically shrink the pool or they have a more nefarious agenda. I wish there was more (at least some) transparency.

129 on the age adjusted score is 97th percentile nationally but not in FCPS. Take a look at the local percentiles to get an idea of what % of FCPS kids scored higher. But 129 is a great score and shows high aptitude.

Correct, but that's the point. "gifted" is not a geographic thing, in the top 3% nationally usually meets the definition of gifted. With the demographics in FCPS 129 is not top 10% so to keep the numbers down, they set a bar based on geography. They are pretty clearly reducing the number of students who test into the pool.

But you can refer in and it you are the type of student that meets the unpublished subjective criteria you can still get in.

PP here. I hear you. We are in same boat with our kid who scored in the 120s - few points lower than yours. Would have been in pool last year based on one subscore over 132. I doubt our kid will make it in - not that great a student yet and would probably get a mediocre GBRS. Looking on the positive side, I figure main takeaway is our kids have good aptitude and if we can help them find their way should have some decent prospects down the road.[/quote]

What do you mean by good prospects?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest losers are the younger kids. 129 (the step below 132) is the 97th percentile when adjusted by age but 89th percentile when adjusted by location. It's the 93d percentile when adjusted for neither (grade score).

True. FCPS has over engineered this by buying their own ratings.

I thought the new test is age-normed and shouldn't put younger kids in any disadvantage?

That's correct. It is age-normed so it puts the older kids at a disadvantage instead of the younger ones. The older kids are basically being compared to 3rd graders for the scores that matter (composite score, etc.). For example, a child born in September may have done significantly better than a child born in October. However, the child born in September could still have a lower score because he/she is being compared to 3rd graders. This does not make sense to me since they are all applying for the same grade. It is completely unfair for an older child. We moved here from an area where the cutoff is August. Therefore, my kid is naturally old for his grade.

If it is age normed, how does this put older kids at a disadvantage exactly? Age normed- mens they are leveling the playing field so that age isn't a factor. In 1st and 2nd grade, an older child would be expected to score higher.

I do think this comes as a surprise to those who tried to game the system by holding back their child before entering kindergarten.

Why should an older child be expected to know more than another 2nd grader? They all have received the same amount of instruction and school work. My child's second grade class is currently learning about analogies, something that appears on the test. 3rd graders have already learned this material. 3rd graders have received an entire extra year of schooling. There are kids barely younger than my child who are graded on an entirely different scale.

Also, not everyone with older kids is "gaming the system." We moved here from a district where the cutoff was August. My child did not make the cutoff there. Here, the cutoff is September. Therefore, he was naturally in a different grade because of his age. This decision was made for us in the previous school district. Also, I know parents who chose to wait to put their kids in school for a variety of reasons, not just academic. Perhaps the child was small for his/her age or socially immature. Not everyone holds back kids for a academic reasons. Don't assume all of these are gaming the system or that these kids are not as smart as the younger students. My child is extremely bright. He should not be labeled as inferior because of his older age.

enough with the hairsplitting already. people here aren't happy unless the test are age-normed. then when they are people complain about that. here's the thing. a brilliant gifted kid is usually going to be obvious no matter how they set up the scoring. yes, there are exceptions of kids who don't test well, but they're few and far between. my brother had an august birthday and was always the youngest in his class -- tested off the charts and better than the older kids always. smart is smart -- and all this moaning and agonizing about how shifting a cutoff score or measurement for age is for the kids at the margins, which you could argue would do equally well in gen ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 130 IQ might get him in. Depends on what cut score they use.

I agree the 130 IQ makes it a strong possibility, but there's no "cut score". The committee looks at the whole file and in this case, you need that. If the teachers give him a high GBRS and your optional materials are good, he's likely to get in.

would agree here - the 130 helps out a lot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PP here. I hear you. We are in same boat with our kid who scored in the 120s - few points lower than yours. Would have been in pool last year based on one subscore over 132. I doubt our kid will make it in - not that great a student yet and would probably get a mediocre GBRS. Looking on the positive side, I figure main takeaway is our kids have good aptitude and if we can help them find their way should have some decent prospects down the road.[/quote]

What do you mean by good prospects?

To have reasonable success down the conventional route - do well in school, make it into a good college, take up some kind of profession. I am a believer in aptitude tests - that the scores do mean something - not everything but still something significant.

[Anonymous]

The program isn't for "gifted" kids anyway. Nothing more than a glorified enrichment program...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The program isn't for "gifted" kids anyway. Nothing more than a glorified enrichment program...

~yawn~

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/100/104443.page#1020399

[Anonymous]

Transferred from out of state. There is a really late age cut off date here to start school. Most places it is Aug 1st. There are a lot transfers and red shirted kids here. My child's class has quite a few that are almost or more than a year older than quite a few kids in the class. You can definitely tell. Not sure if it shows in their academics.