Anonymous wrote:Our school uploaded scores to ParentVue but not the full document with percentiles. It’s not yet in documents.

Quant: 138
Nonverbal: 112
Verbal: 129
Total: 133

Can anyone point me to a resources that shows how scores fall for National percentages (just curious and have had no luck on google).

We’re in an average pyramid (West Potomac) and a school of mixed SES (1/3 immersion students from all over county, 1/3 base school from Route 1 corridor (attendance island) and 1/3 base school from UMC neighborhood surrounding school. Already referred - waiting to see if kiddo gets into pool too.

in-pool notifications came out yesterday, so maybe your DC didn't make the local norm cutoff. What was their NNAT? For the West Potomac pyramid (depending on your ES), I would expect something around 132 would be the cutoff.

Our school uploaded scores to ParentVue but not the full document with percentiles. It’s not yet in documents.

Quant: 138
Nonverbal: 112
Verbal: 129
Total: 133

Can anyone point me to a resources that shows how scores fall for National percentages (just curious and have had no luck on google).

We’re in an average pyramid (West Potomac) and a school of mixed SES (1/3 immersion students from all over county, 1/3 base school from Route 1 corridor (attendance island) and 1/3 base school from UMC neighborhood surrounding school. Already referred - waiting to see if kiddo gets into pool too.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And no, my child did not prep at all for either test other than the practice questions they did in school. So that makes it double unfair.

How do you know your child won't get in? Jesus people, calm down. The score cutoff is just to determine whether someone is in the pool of kids who will be automatically screened. It doesn't mean your child will or won't get in. YOU CAN STILL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR YOUR CHILD. If they're as wonderful as you think they are, then submit a referral that shows that so the selection committee can see for themselves that they belong in AAP.

All you "my kid isn't in pool" people need to chill. It's not a rejection. It's a screener stage that they didn't meet some dumb arbitrary cutoff for. Refer your kid yourself and move on with life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that the verbal section is not well written. My daughter said there was a question with a ball, baseball bat, and some weird hand. I figured out it was a baseball catchers mitt. Why should a 6yo girl's inability to identify baseball equipment be detrimental to the measure of her "verbal" ability?

DC got 148 for Q, but only 119 for verbal. Too unbalanced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that the verbal section is not well written. My daughter said there was a question with a ball, baseball bat, and some weird hand. I figured out it was a baseball catchers mitt. Why should a 6yo girl's inability to identify baseball equipment be detrimental to the measure of her "verbal" ability?

Well, if it's a "weird hand", I am pretty sure it's a picture question therefore non-verbal.

The CogAT verbal section for grades 2 and under uses pictures rather than words for the analogies and other questions. They don't want to give any advantage to kids who can't fluently read in English.

But the CogAT pictures definitely belie the writers' bias towards a Leave-it-to-beaver upbringing. Knowledge of baseball, Christmas trees, Easter bunnies, etc... should not be requisite for measuring "verbal" acumen of 6-7yos.

This is the problem with the test. It was designed for certain people. It’s flawed.

My child’s Cogat results on sis says text taken 10/14/23. Ok now I don’t trust these results because that test was on the last week of October.

Scores uploaded to SIS this am in the “Test History” section.

Still no Cogat score in my kid's backpack or on SIS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that the verbal section is not well written. My daughter said there was a question with a ball, baseball bat, and some weird hand. I figured out it was a baseball catchers mitt. Why should a 6yo girl's inability to identify baseball equipment be detrimental to the measure of her "verbal" ability?

Well, if it's a "weird hand", I am pretty sure it's a picture question therefore non-verbal.

The CogAT verbal section for grades 2 and under uses pictures rather than words for the analogies and other questions. They don't want to give any advantage to kids who can't fluently read in English.

But the CogAT pictures definitely belie the writers' bias towards a Leave-it-to-beaver upbringing. Knowledge of baseball, Christmas trees, Easter bunnies, etc... should not be requisite for measuring "verbal" acumen of 6-7yos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that the verbal section is not well written. My daughter said there was a question with a ball, baseball bat, and some weird hand. I figured out it was a baseball catchers mitt. Why should a 6yo girl's inability to identify baseball equipment be detrimental to the measure of her "verbal" ability?

Well, if it's a "weird hand", I am pretty sure it's a picture question therefore non-verbal.

The CogAT verbal section for grades 2 and under uses pictures rather than words for the analogies and other questions. They don't want to give any advantage to kids who can't fluently read in English.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What are you talking about? Both sections are nationally normed, and both are scaled such that the same percentile rank corresponds to the same score. The relative difficulty in being in the top 2% in verbal is exactly the same as being in the top 2% in quantitative.

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.

Some kids are really thrown by the pictures. Years ago, my kid had a 112 or 113 on CogAT verbal, but had a 130 on WISC Verbal. He said after the test that he couldn't tell what some of the pictures were supposed to be.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Math is 9, Verbal is 7

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that the verbal section is not well written. My daughter said there was a question with a ball, baseball bat, and some weird hand. I figured out it was a baseball catchers mitt. Why should a 6yo girl's inability to identify baseball equipment be detrimental to the measure of her "verbal" ability?

Well, if it's a "weird hand", I am pretty sure it's a picture question therefore non-verbal.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that the verbal section is not well written. My daughter said there was a question with a ball, baseball bat, and some weird hand. I figured out it was a baseball catchers mitt. Why should a 6yo girl's inability to identify baseball equipment be detrimental to the measure of her "verbal" ability?