Anonymous wrote:Lemon Road elementary school sent the letter with the Cogat score with Wednesday folders (my son came home early today since he is not feeling well).
Verbal: 132/9/98
Quantitative: 142/9/99
Non-Verbal: 131/9/97

Composite(VQN): 142/9/99

I wish he score a little bit more in Non-verbal. Got the pool email, fingers crossed. I just hope he gets in.

Anonymous wrote:Lemon Road elementary school sent the letter with the Cogat score with Wednesday folders (my son came home early today since he is not feeling well).
Verbal: 132/9/98
Quantitative: 142/9/99
Non-Verbal: 131/9/97

Composite(VQN): 142/9/99

I wish he score a little bit more in Non-verbal. Got the pool email, fingers crossed. I just hope he gets in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My hypothesis is that they are only using CogAT scores for in-pool. 137 NNAT maybe scored lower on the CogAT and that is why they were not in-pool. The NNAT last year might have had abnormal results (The number of really high scores seem to be an anomaly. There might be more bifurcation of scores due to the change in learning environment or a change in the number of kids who took it) and so FCPS decided to use only the CogAT. FCPS has the CogAT scores and used them for the cut off but has not released them yet.

That contracts what is actually published.

During the months of October and November both the Cognitive Abilities Test and Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test will be administered. Scores from these assessments are used to create the second-grade screening pool

(https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C7TSU8744C3E/$file/2021%20Oct%20-%20local%20norm%20expansion%20briefing.pdf)

Students in grade 2 may be identified for screening based on their performance on a universal screening assessment (e.g., CogAT, NNAT); or

(https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BVUQLV69E127/$file/Additional%20Information%20Related%20to%20the%20Use%20of%20Local%20Norm%20in%20Creating%20Level%20IV%20Screening%20Pool.pdf)

If they didn't use the NNAT for pool, AARTs would have said so at their level IV meetings. Yes they did propose getting rid of the NNAT, but they clearly haven't done that yet.

We have people without NNATs that got the in-pool letter, so the CogAT is likely known to the schools. We have parents with a 137 NNAT not get an in-pool letter. It could be a glitch, god knows they happen, OR some school has set a higher bar for in-pool OR the NNAT is not being used. My money is on a glitch but I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped the NNAT as an in-pool determination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My hypothesis is that they are only using CogAT scores for in-pool. 137 NNAT maybe scored lower on the CogAT and that is why they were not in-pool. The NNAT last year might have had abnormal results (The number of really high scores seem to be an anomaly. There might be more bifurcation of scores due to the change in learning environment or a change in the number of kids who took it) and so FCPS decided to use only the CogAT. FCPS has the CogAT scores and used them for the cut off but has not released them yet.

That contracts what is actually published.

During the months of October and November both the Cognitive Abilities Test and Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test will be administered. Scores from these assessments are used to create the second-grade screening pool

(https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C7TSU8744C3E/$file/2021%20Oct%20-%20local%20norm%20expansion%20briefing.pdf)

Students in grade 2 may be identified for screening based on their performance on a universal screening assessment (e.g., CogAT, NNAT); or

(https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BVUQLV69E127/$file/Additional%20Information%20Related%20to%20the%20Use%20of%20Local%20Norm%20in%20Creating%20Level%20IV%20Screening%20Pool.pdf)

If they didn't use the NNAT for pool, AARTs would have said so at their level IV meetings. Yes they did propose getting rid of the NNAT, but they clearly haven't done that yet.

Anonymous wrote:In 2021 they only used NNAT for selection. The current 3rd graders didn’t take cogat before the selection process. They took it in 2021.
My assumption is that they took both cogat and NNAT into consideration. The PP who didn’t get an email with NNAT 137 May have missed the email or may be a troll.

Anonymous wrote:My hypothesis is that they are only using CogAT scores for in-pool. 137 NNAT maybe scored lower on the CogAT and that is why they were not in-pool. The NNAT last year might have had abnormal results (The number of really high scores seem to be an anomaly. There might be more bifurcation of scores due to the change in learning environment or a change in the number of kids who took it) and so FCPS decided to use only the CogAT. FCPS has the CogAT scores and used them for the cut off but has not released them yet.

Anonymous wrote:My hypothesis is that they are only using CogAT scores for in-pool. 137 NNAT maybe scored lower on the CogAT and that is why they were not in-pool. The NNAT last year might have had abnormal results (The number of really high scores seem to be an anomaly. There might be more bifurcation of scores due to the change in learning environment or a change in the number of kids who took it) and so FCPS decided to use only the CogAT. FCPS has the CogAT scores and used them for the cut off but has not released them yet.

During the months of October and November both the Cognitive Abilities Test and Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test will be administered. Scores from these assessments are used to create the second-grade screening pool

Students in grade 2 may be identified for screening based on their performance on a universal screening assessment (e.g., CogAT, NNAT); or

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For clarification the cutoff is the lower of a building norm or the national norm. I believe the national norm is 132. No school will have a higher cutoff than the national norm, but some schools may be lower.

Not sure why 137 poster didn't get an email, but it's making me hope that maybe not all the emails were sent out or some schools are doing a different way or are behind.

Cite?

Not PP, but this is where people (including myself until I read the Brabrand Briefing) were getting that from, the 12/3/2020 SB meeting where the motion was passed to do this:

I move that in School Year 2020-21, for schools with an AAP Local Level IV or AAP Level IV Center, the pool of second grade students to be screened for AAP Level IV services will be identified by piloting the use local building norms, while ensuring that any student who meets the national norm is also identified for screening. In schools that do not yet have a Level IV program, national norms will continue to be used to identify students for eligibility screening.

Motion by Stella Pekarsky - Vice Chair, second by Laura Jane H Cohen.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yes: Megan McLaughlin, Ricardy J Anderson - Chair, Melanie K Meren, Rachna S Heizer, Elaine V Tholen, Tamara D Kaufax, Karen Corbett Sanders, Karen A Keys-Gamarra, Stella Pekarsky - Vice Chair, Abrar Omeish, Laura Jane H Cohen, Karl V Frisch

http://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BVJEC639BBEC

Brabrand doesn't reference national norms any more in the briefing or anywhere else.

This is definitely the process used for the 2020-21 school year but sounds as though it was changed for 2021-22. I no longer see any reference to the use of national norms.

I suspect that they're calling them all local norms, but in reality if they do the same calculation for a school -- whether it's top 5% at that school or top 2% at that school or however else it is calculated -- and if the number is higher than the national norm, then they're instructed to use the national norm, but call it "local norm" as word play because it's the norm for that school. Also his update is more about the fact they're doing this process for the 34 schools that don't yet have a level IV program, rather than last year's plan to just use the national norm for the schools.

This is a good hypothesis but it doesn't explain why the person with the 137 NNAT didn't receive an in-pool letter. Seems unlikely that they wouldn't have sent out all pool letters simultaneously.

We don't know if that poster was telling the truth (see whole thread claiming their scores were posted 1 month ago). If it is true, we don’t know if PP checked the correct email account and if they checked all folders.