Anonymous wrote:Question from someone less familiar with this process and the CoGAT... my DD will be coming from another district to FCPS next year. She is currently in GT where we are based on her CoGAT... which was a 123, but says 94th percentile. But this was a CogAT from 2017. Is it fair to compare her scores to those being shared here or is it different year to year? Trying to gauge what chance we have of getting her into AAP when we move! THANK you!

Anonymous wrote:No, but school did state AART teacher comes back in January and will review all parent submissions at that point

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone from GBW get in? We haven’t received any “in-pool” email yet but our AART teacher has been OOO since November. Not sure if that has anything to do with lack of notification or did my child simply not make it.

The in-pool notification is from the central office - your AART and school are not involved. Your kid didn't make the top 10% cut at your school. If you parent referred, they will still be considered for the program. If not, you'll have to wait and apply next year.

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone from GBW get in? We haven’t received any “in-pool” email yet but our AART teacher has been OOO since November. Not sure if that has anything to do with lack of notification or did my child simply not make it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT: 125
COGAT: 137

Not in in Braddock.

Braddock seems to have wide gap between ES schools in term of cogat/nnat scores

Really depends on your kid’s grade and kids in that grade at the school. If your kid has 100 kids, your kid needs to be top 10. If there are 10 kids who scored higher, your kid is out.

Yes, but assuming the information is correct, there have been enough data points posted for Braddock that it points out the unevenness of the current methodology for determining the "in pool" kids. Early in the thread, two kids with similar scores in the 120's, one got in, one didn't; then one kid with both scores in the 130's didn't make the pool, now this last one with an average score of 131 didn't make the pool (& the higher score was a 137 CogAT ~98.46 percentile for those who believe that gets the heavier weighting). Mind you, these kids don't even get reviewed unless they are referred. And they are probably all competing for spots at the same center.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT: 125
COGAT: 137

Not in in Braddock.

Braddock seems to have wide gap between ES schools in term of cogat/nnat scores

Really depends on your kid’s grade and kids in that grade at the school. If your kid has 100 kids, your kid needs to be top 10. If there are 10 kids who scored higher, your kid is out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT: 125
COGAT: 137

Not in in Braddock.

Braddock seems to have wide gap between ES schools in term of cogat/nnat scores

Anonymous wrote:NNAT: 125
COGAT: 137

Not in in Braddock.

Anonymous wrote:I find it really interesting how DC's CogAT scores varied this year (5th grade, new district) vs. the first time (2nd grade, FCPS). Verbal subscore dropped from low 150s to low 130s (~20 points). Quant and Non-Verbal subscores increased from mid 130s to mid 140s (~10 points each). Composite nearly the same.

I haven't really observed any particular growth in their age-normed Quant/Non-Verbal skills nor decline in their age-normed Verbal skills. So I'm guessing this is less a function of their aptitudes in these areas meaningfully shifting in past 3 years, and more likely just the random variation for a given student if you take the one test one day/week/month vs. another. Could be a bit of both, but just knowing DC as well as I do it seems more the latter.

FWIW they also took NNAT and WISC in 2021 (WISC as a backup in case we needed to appeal). NNAT tracked closer to 2021 CogAT on Non-Verbal... WISC Visual-Spatial tracked closer to 2024 CogAT on Non-Verbal. WISC Verbal tracked closed to 2024 CogAT Verbal.

I guess my point is it just seems like these scores all have wider-than-I-expected margins-of-error for a given student (10-to-20 point swings). It seems therefore wise that they don't use it as the sole decision criteria and take things like teacher observations and actual work samples into account.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it really interesting how DC's CogAT scores varied this year (5th grade, new district) vs. the first time (2nd grade, FCPS). Verbal subscore dropped from low 150s to low 130s (~20 points). Quant and Non-Verbal subscores increased from mid 130s to mid 140s (~10 points each). Composite nearly the same.

I haven't really observed any particular growth in their age-normed Quant/Non-Verbal skills nor decline in their age-normed Verbal skills. So I'm guessing this is less a function of their aptitudes in these areas meaningfully shifting in past 3 years, and more likely just the random variation for a given student if you take the one test one day/week/month vs. another. Could be a bit of both, but just knowing DC as well as I do it seems more the latter.

FWIW they also took NNAT and WISC in 2021 (WISC as a backup in case we needed to appeal). NNAT tracked closer to 2021 CogAT on Non-Verbal... WISC Visual-Spatial tracked closer to 2024 CogAT on Non-Verbal. WISC Verbal tracked closed to 2024 CogAT Verbal.

I guess my point is it just seems like these scores all have wider-than-I-expected margins-of-error for a given student (10-to-20 point swings). It seems therefore wise that they don't use it as the sole decision criteria and take things like teacher observations and actual work samples into account.

In my sample size of 1 kid, the quant and nonverbal on the second grade COGAT were almost identical to the WISC, however there was a 30 point difference on the verbal (higher on WISC). I believe the exclusive use of pictures on the cogat verbal section did not accurately measure my childs ability for that section.

My very advanced reader did not do well on verbal cogat but scored high on other sections and managed to still be 98th percentile. Not sure why it is called verbal when it is all pictures. She managed to be in pool despite average verbal cogat.

Sorry I messed up that last post. Here is my actual post which I mean to append not embed in the prior post:

Same here. I didn't know it was all pictures, but "verbal" was weakest of the three sub scores @ 124. VQN = 132 NNAT was high @ 155. I guess we have to "hope" that DD's HOPE score is good and that NNAT has some weight. Grades have been good but not perfect, and seem to support that quantitative skills are her strength. She is "in pool" at our middling SES school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it really interesting how DC's CogAT scores varied this year (5th grade, new district) vs. the first time (2nd grade, FCPS). Verbal subscore dropped from low 150s to low 130s (~20 points). Quant and Non-Verbal subscores increased from mid 130s to mid 140s (~10 points each). Composite nearly the same.

I haven't really observed any particular growth in their age-normed Quant/Non-Verbal skills nor decline in their age-normed Verbal skills. So I'm guessing this is less a function of their aptitudes in these areas meaningfully shifting in past 3 years, and more likely just the random variation for a given student if you take the one test one day/week/month vs. another. Could be a bit of both, but just knowing DC as well as I do it seems more the latter.

FWIW they also took NNAT and WISC in 2021 (WISC as a backup in case we needed to appeal). NNAT tracked closer to 2021 CogAT on Non-Verbal... WISC Visual-Spatial tracked closer to 2024 CogAT on Non-Verbal. WISC Verbal tracked closed to 2024 CogAT Verbal.

I guess my point is it just seems like these scores all have wider-than-I-expected margins-of-error for a given student (10-to-20 point swings). It seems therefore wise that they don't use it as the sole decision criteria and take things like teacher observations and actual work samples into account.

In my sample size of 1 kid, the quant and nonverbal on the second grade COGAT were almost identical to the WISC, however there was a 30 point difference on the verbal (higher on WISC). I believe the exclusive use of pictures on the cogat verbal section did not accurately measure my childs ability for that section.

My very advanced reader did not do well on verbal cogat but scored high on other sections and managed to still be 98th percentile. Not sure why it is called verbal when it is all pictures. She managed to be in pool despite average verbal cogat.

Sorry I messed up that last post. Here is my actual post which I mean to append not embed in the prior post:

Same here. I didn't know it was all pictures, but "verbal" was weakest of the three sub scores @ 124. VQN = 132 NNAT was high @ 155. I guess we have to "hope" that DD's HOPE score is good and that NNAT has some weight. Grades have been good but not perfect, and seem to support that quantitative skills are her strength. She is "in pool" at our middling SES school.