Reply to Is CogAT gone forever?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Is CogAT gone forever?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is COGAT going to be required for any other gradess this year?[/quote]

These gatekeeping tests have fallen out of favor since they are inequitable. [/quote]

I don’t really see how the Cogat is inequitable. It’s not based on concepts taught. Vast majority of kids have never seen it before/prepped in any way. It measures cognitive aptitude and reasoning skills. It’s actually a much better tool than the MAP, which in my opinion is a good test but could be seen as inequitable since scores can be improved based on early access to more advanced concepts. [/quote]

True. The majority have never seen it or prepped.

But those that had seen it and prepped were getting a lot of admissions.  [/quote]

With just a few tutoring sessions to practice this test my kid's score improved by 20%. It only cost me a few hundred bucks. [/quote]

I would say something, but will wait so see the results in a few years so that no one will argue with how badly MCPS messed up the GT program and magnet feeders.

Suffice to say that when MCPS threw out the CoGAT (a race-neutral, nationally-administered test), I believe they were no longer selecting the best-of-the-best anymore.  Thankfully there were a lot of private companies willing to pick up that slack.  The parents and students that realized this have a distinct advantage over those that didn't.

There were already signs when (I believe it was Frost?) beat TPMS in math competitions?  Let's see how HS turns out for those kids.[/quote]

As long as MCPS does not mess up HS selections for application based programs, the kids who only got into TPMS due to the lottery, will not get in.  [/quote]

I think that misses the point.  Some high performing kids who did get in to TPMS/Clemente might still be selected for SMaCS, while their lower-performing (but still good enough to have been in the lottery pool) classmates might not, but it may be harder for some who in past years would have gone to the criteria-based magnets to get selected for the high school program.

Take the use case of a kid who would have gotten in when identified by ability-related tests like CogAT, but who did not because of the shift to exposure-related tests like MAP.  An outlier in the system as a whole, but without a peer cohort (and peer parent cohort) that would tend to better enable (perhaps by multiple-parent request) continued above-grade-level exposure in school.  A kid whose parents don't have the resources ($, time or location) to pay for RSM or the like to provide that exposure outside of school.  This kid likely falls into a demographic for which the BOE and superintendent espouse protection, [i]but they won't get in to SMaCS.[/i]

Why?  Because of the continued lack of exposure.  On the one hand, they wouldn't have covered the material that would make them good candidates for a class like Functions.  On the other, they've probably lost a good amount of interest in the subject due to years of its being too easy for them, the system failing to provide the challenge that sparks the greater subject involvement that might support an application profile.

Using a test like MAP to identify candidates is worse than using one like CogAT, because, while the latter isn't perfect, the former is [i]much[/i] easier to game and then tilts the system towards the already-haves who best can game it.  What happened to the multi-factorial approach to lottery identification (either this from this testing period or that from that testing period, etc.) that occurred in that first year they couldn't use CogAT?  (That was supposed to help sweep in those who might have ability, recognizing the fallibility of single-point-in-time test gates.)

The fact that they shifted the next year to the stricter version (only Fall MAP, no reprieve [i]via[/i] other factors, just additional requirements from them), failing to re-employ ability-related testing (ostensibly to preserve classroom instruction time to deal with learning loss, but being willing to cut that instruction time for other purposes), tells us that they really have little interest in meeting [i]high-ability[/i] kids where they are.  The fact that they tried to wrangle the magnet demographics via the lottery system, while allowing different implementations of alternatives across local schools, tells us that they have little interest in ensuring enough enriched/accelerated programming in the first place.

The system should not be embracing any paradigm that serves outside prep over intrinsic student ability.  There are far fewer seats in these programs than it has kids who would benefit in the first place.  What was the ratio of seats to student population when they were created (or last expanded)?  Was it even enough back then?  (The equivalent chatter from long ago suggests not.)  What is that ratio now?
[/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