Reply to Cogat and NNAt 2021 Scores Sharing thread

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Cogat and NNAt 2021 Scores Sharing thread"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Falls Church Pyramid,
NNAT: 152,
COGAT: composite 141, Verbal 144, Q 132, NV131. In pool.[/quote]

I’m sure DCUM isn’t a representative sample, but not seeing much evidence of pool discrepancies between higher and lower SES schools thus far.[/quote]

I don't know the SES of every pyramid, but 2 schools that could be lower SES - South Lakes and West Springfield - had lower in-pool scores. Even if someone reports their score was over 140, we don't know if the cut-off could have been lower since it's the only report here from that school. [/quote]

True. Just noting we haven’t seen any hard evidence of low in-pool scores thus far.  Even the examples from South Lakes and West Springfield still had scores above last year’s universal cut-off of 132.[/quote]

This is what surprises me. My children are at a school that would be on the lower half of SES for Fairfax, if not the lower quarter (more than 1/3 FARMS,  more than 1/4 ELL). It is the sort of school I would think the board intended to increase or at least maintain the number of students considered. However there are at least 2 students who would have been in the pool last year and are not. One even had CogAT composite of 136. Yes both parents chose to refer anyway so there is no true harm to them. But what about the kid who may have scored 132 or more but has parents who don't speak English and don't know about AAP or understand these changes? The ones who assume if their child was that bright the school would tell them and automatically consider them. These changes were approved by the board with the goal of increasing the net and yet they seem to have narrowed it. Even at the higher SES schools, I hope they actually do an analysis to determine if raising the cutoff resulted in more or less URM being considered.

With no transparency, there is no way for parents to know if the school above truly had 5 or 10% score above 136 or if the school used a county norm (top 2% of the county). Is someone from the AAP office setting all of this or are the schools individually doing it? The memo posted here said the schools would, but then AAP office seems to have mailed the in pool notifications. Is anyone double checking the work? One person posted their AART said there was no pool. Was that a lie or someone who misunderstood the policy change and is applying it wrong at their schools? Is the schoolboard aware that the change to the pool process, which appears to have been made solely by Brabrand, does not include the safety net of the national norm like last year?[/quote]

Interesting. We’re at a Title I school. I only know one other second grader well enough to know their scores but both that child and my own scored more than 140 and were in the pool.  
[/quote]

In the examples they gave, the use of a local norm vs the national norm (132) resulted in about 9-10 students being in pool vs 1-2 using the national norm (top 2% nationally). This would suggest they took somewhere between the top 5-10% of the grade, unless we truly have elementary schools with 500 kids in one grade (number needed for 10 kids to represent top 2% of the grade). It's possible they did use top 2% last year but someone made a mathematical error and calculated 2% of the whole school or 2% of the AAP eligible population (grades 2+). With no explanation of how the building norm is calculated, there is no way to know.

If building norm was top 2% of the school, that would really change the math to support the pilot program because in their examples because it would mean the schools that had 1-2 kids in pool before would have about 2-4 kids in pool (assuming 100-200 kids per grade, not for schools with about 100 kids/grade or less this means no benefitto using a local norm) rather than the examples of 8-12 kids but then their example of the one T1 school that had 5 kids in pool using the national norm would have less kids in pool, unless the school has 250 kids per grade. It would look even worse at higher SES schools that had double digit number of kids in pool already.

If they could determine the pool already, they can determine what the changes did. Someone,  and in particular the schoolboard, should have reviewed this. The goal was to cast a bigger net. Even your school, we have no way of knowing if those are the two kids who are in pool and other kids who scored >132 weren't in pool or if the 132 number was used (or a lower number).

It's easy to say "who cares those parents will refer anyway" but that isn't equity. It requires involved parents who have the time and ability to fill out the referral. Yes, a talented kid who scored 131 but had uninvolved parents was skipped by the old system, however increasing that threshold to be a higher number so more of those kids are missed makes the system worse, not more equitable. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics