Anonymous wrote:This may have been accurate in the past but I’m not sure it will be going forward at high SES schools. Historically, not many 140+ kids were rejected. And, that is for good reason: those scores are incredibly high and signal a need for differentiation. I suspect that, going forward, the presumption in these schools will be that in-pool kids will be accepted. We will see a higher percentage of the pool being accepted and a lower percentage of parent referrals being accepted. This seems like the most logical and easiest way to limit the size of level IV programs at high ses schools. Parent referrals at high ses schools have gotten out of hand and I’m guessing the local norms are one mechanism to start dealing with that.

Agreed.

This may have been accurate in the past but I’m not sure it will be going forward at high SES schools. Historically, not many 140+ kids were rejected. And, that is for good reason: those scores are incredibly high and signal a need for differentiation. I suspect that, going forward, the presumption in these schools will be that in-pool kids will be accepted. We will see a higher percentage of the pool being accepted and a lower percentage of parent referrals being accepted. This seems like the most logical and easiest way to limit the size of level IV programs at high ses schools. Parent referrals at high ses schools have gotten out of hand and I’m guessing the local norms are one mechanism to start dealing with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the odds of acceptance are higher when you’re in the pool.

The "in pool" checkbox isn't why the odds of acceptance are higher for pool kids. It's because the higher scores do demonstrate something, and they correlate with higher GBRS scores on average. The actual "in pool" status itself doesn't get you any extra points over the other kids.

Perhaps. It certainly doesn’t offer extra “points” per se. That said, the committee definitely knows which applicants are in and which are not in pool. I don’t think anyone can say with certainty that the distinction confers no added benefit in and of itself.

DP. We can say that GBRS is much more important than pool status or test scores, as shown in the AAP equity report. Also, considering that NNAT is largely discounted, we can pretty definitively say that an in-pool kid with a 140 NNAT and 120 CogAT will not be looked upon more favorably or "gain points" relative to a not in pool kid with a 131 on each of NNAT and CogAT.

Of course we can't say with certainty that in-pool has no benefit in and of itself, since the process is a black box. It's pretty reasonable to conclude that it has no or minimal benefit. Prep aside, kids with higher test scores on average are going to be smarter than the kids with lower test scores, which should be reflected in the GBRS. Kids who have been heavily prepped have also been taught how to be good, attentive students who participate fully in class and produce neat, well done work. That will also be reflected in GBRS as well as the work samples. Also, test scores and level of advancement do matter. In pool kids at least have some high test scores, while parent referrals may have pretty low scores. Despite all of this, there isn't a huge difference in the rate of acceptance between parent referrals (50%) and in-pool (67%). More kids get accepted through parent referral than through the pool. Since there are tons of parent referrals, it is highly likely that there's no difference in acceptance at all between kids with a CogAT around 125 and a decent GBRS and an average in-pool kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone at all been in-pool with a score lower than 140 on their best element?? I think there was maybe one poster from West Springfield but I don’t recall any others.

I checked the whole thread again and it’s only justice (cogat composite 139) and west Springfield (composite 132) are below 140 cogat composite.

Any one else with cogat composite score lower than 140 and got the in pool email?

Title 1 schools parents are not posting here it seems. All posts are from high SES schools.
I think it’s good not to know cut off of each school especially title 1 schools as it can become chaotic. Parents are stressing too much on something that’s not in their control.

Our child is the Justice score, and he attends a Title 1 school.

Anonymous wrote:Pyramid NNAT Cogat composite Cogat Verbal Cogat Quantitative Cogat Non-Verbal In pool
Oakton 140 127 ? ? ? ?
Marshall 120 132 ? ? ? ?
? 106 138 ? ? ? ?
Herndon 142 140 ? ? ? ?
McLean 129 110 110 113 109 No
Langley 126 131 118 127 135 No
McLean ? 131 ? ? ? No
Marshall 111 132 128 121 135 No
Edison ? 133 ? ? ? No
Lake Braddock 133 131 138 112 No
Oakton 133 136 ? ? ? No
WestSpringfield 128 132 122 134 127 Yes
Justice 140 139 118 141 136 Yes
Langley ? 140 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 140 124 140 135 Yes
FallsChurch 119 141 129 141 133 Yes
Marshall 134 142 132 142 131 Yes
Chantilly 120 142 117 144 141 Yes
Madison 160 142 ? ? ? Yes
Madison 123 142 148 138 123 Yes
Marshall 154 143 ? ? ? Yes
Madison ? 143 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 145 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 152 146 135 147 131 Yes
McLean ? 146 ? ? ? Yes
Langley 137 147 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 160 152 ? ? ? Yes
Robinson 140 ? 132 115 132 Yes
Lewis
Mt. Vernon
South Lakes
West Potomac

This information will benefit kids around the borderline, and their parents may want to appeal or re-apply the AAP program next year. Thanks to all who shared their scores.

Pyramid NNAT Cogat composite Cogat Verbal Cogat Quantitative Cogat Non-Verbal In pool
Oakton 140 127 ? ? ? ?
Marshall 120 132 ? ? ? ?
? 106 138 ? ? ? ?
Herndon 142 140 ? ? ? ?
McLean 129 110 110 113 109 No
Langley 126 131 118 127 135 No
McLean ? 131 ? ? ? No
Marshall 111 132 128 121 135 No
Edison ? 133 ? ? ? No
Lake Braddock 133 131 138 112 No
Oakton 133 136 ? ? ? No
WestSpringfield 128 132 122 134 127 Yes
Justice 140 139 118 141 136 Yes
Langley ? 140 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 140 124 140 135 Yes
FallsChurch 119 141 129 141 133 Yes
Marshall 134 142 132 142 131 Yes
Chantilly 120 142 117 144 141 Yes
Madison 160 142 ? ? ? Yes
Madison 123 142 148 138 123 Yes
Marshall 154 143 ? ? ? Yes
Madison ? 143 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 145 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 152 146 135 147 131 Yes
McLean ? 146 ? ? ? Yes
Langley 137 147 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 160 152 ? ? ? Yes
Robinson 140 ? 132 115 132 Yes
Lewis
Mt. Vernon
South Lakes
West Potomac

Anonymous wrote:Bingo! None from West Potomac either, although Robinson is a far different school than others above.

I just picked High Schools that I knew of and hadn't seen or only had seen a few of.

Ok, here's one for the Robinson Pyramid:
NNAT: 140
COGAT: NV:132, Q:115, V:132, in pool.
(Not sure why quant was relatively low bc DD appears more advanced in math than anything else)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the odds of acceptance are higher when you’re in the pool.

The "in pool" checkbox isn't why the odds of acceptance are higher for pool kids. It's because the higher scores do demonstrate something, and they correlate with higher GBRS scores on average. The actual "in pool" status itself doesn't get you any extra points over the other kids.

Perhaps. It certainly doesn’t offer extra “points” per se. That said, the committee definitely knows which applicants are in and which are not in pool. I don’t think anyone can say with certainty that the distinction confers no added benefit in and of itself.

Bingo! None from West Potomac either, although Robinson is a far different school than others above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:same % of kids per school are deemed in-pool, there was no set score cutoff. they wanted in-pool to be exactly proportionate at every school in district.

Are you saying that you know this for sure? From this page it looks like the cut-off was 140 for many schools, unless that's also the top x percent at all of those schools.

Look at the pyramids reported and you will see a trend. There are no reported scores from anyone in the South Lakes Pyramid and only one from the Herndon Pyramid. Not much from Lewis or Justice or Mt. Vernon or Robinson.

The posters here skew to the Upper Middle Class/Higher SES schools so that is going to bias reports and people's attitudes. We are not seeing or hearing about the scores from the Title I schools, for the most part.

I suspect that FCPS did set the local norms to the top 10 or 15% for each school and the scores reflect that.

Anonymous wrote:same % of kids per school are deemed in-pool, there was no set score cutoff. they wanted in-pool to be exactly proportionate at every school in district.

Are you saying that you know this for sure? From this page it looks like the cut-off was 140 for many schools, unless that's also the top x percent at all of those schools.

same % of kids per school are deemed in-pool, there was no set score cutoff. they wanted in-pool to be exactly proportionate at every school in district.

Pyramid NNAT Cogat composite Cogat Verbal Cogat Quantitative Cogat Non-Verbal In pool
Oakton 140 127 ? ? ? ?
Marshall 120 132 ? ? ? ?
? 106 138 ? ? ? ?
Herndon 142 140 ? ? ? ?
McLean 129 110 110 113 109 No
Langley 126 131 118 127 135 No
McLean ? 131 ? ? ? No
Marshall 111 132 128 121 135 No
Edison ? 133 ? ? ? No
Lake Braddock 133 131 138 112 No
Oakton 133 136 ? ? ? No
WestSpringfield 128 132 122 134 127 Yes
Justice 140 139 118 141 136 Yes
Langley ? 140 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 140 124 140 135 Yes
FallsChurch 119 141 129 141 133 Yes
Marshall 134 142 132 142 131 Yes
Chantilly 120 142 117 144 141 Yes
Madison 160 142 ? ? ? Yes
Madison 123 142 148 138 123 Yes
Marshall 154 143 ? ? ? Yes
Madison ? 143 ? ? ? Yes
McLean ? 145 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 152 146 135 147 131 Yes
McLean ? 146 ? ? ? Yes
Langley 137 147 ? ? ? Yes
McLean 160 152 ? ? ? Yes

Anonymous wrote:Because the odds of acceptance are higher when you’re in the pool.

The "in pool" checkbox isn't why the odds of acceptance are higher for pool kids. It's because the higher scores do demonstrate something, and they correlate with higher GBRS scores on average. The actual "in pool" status itself doesn't get you any extra points over the other kids.