Anonymous
05/16/2024 08:10
Subject: Re:AAP still possible?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, you might be interested in page 66 of the AAP equity report from 4 years ago.
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf
It shows the mean, min, max, and standard deviation of test scores of kids admitted to AAP.
OP here. This is exactly the kind of info I like. It's odd to see that for white kids the range for NNAT is wider, with children scoring as low as 70 being AAP eligible (for Asians it's 93).
I'm not sure why people say it's the "least reliable" metric? Naglieri is a respected researcher, and on the face of it, it seems like a reasonable test of nonverbal intelligence. What are the complaints specifically? I found this wiki article on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naglieri_Nonverbal_Ability_Test) and it mentioned that there is more variabilty than expected and more high scores than expected, but without more context it's hard to interpret those claims.
It's also the most dated of the information provided in the package, having occurred a year previous, whereas the COGAT was just months beforehand, and I-Ready earlier in the year.
Anonymous
05/16/2024 07:31
Subject: AAP still possible?
Anonymous wrote:My 2nd grader has always been 98/99% on every iready and then had a relatively low NNAT of 117 last spring. Not exactly sure what happened. Then in second grade, CoGat was much higher at 143. We did not prep for either, however the first grade teacher did not give the class any information on the test beforehand, whereas the second grade teacher did give the class an overview the day before. Child was in pool and admitted to level IV AAP for next year, so the low NNAT was not a deal breaker.
Good to know. Did your DC also have very good report cards/GBRS? My DC has some 3s on report cards and not sure if that's also something to worry about or relatively normal.
Anonymous
05/15/2024 12:09
Subject: AAP still possible?
My 2nd grader has always been 98/99% on every iready and then had a relatively low NNAT of 117 last spring. Not exactly sure what happened. Then in second grade, CoGat was much higher at 143. We did not prep for either, however the first grade teacher did not give the class any information on the test beforehand, whereas the second grade teacher did give the class an overview the day before. Child was in pool and admitted to level IV AAP for next year, so the low NNAT was not a deal breaker.
Anonymous
05/15/2024 11:11
Subject: AAP still possible?
Anonymous wrote:Can NNAT be more easily prepped than CogAT?
Cogat has slightly more math and geometry, I feel cogat is easier to prep. I had my child did some NNAT practices, and there is really nothing to "tutor" because you either see it or don't.
Anonymous
05/15/2024 07:16
Subject: Re:AAP still possible?
Anonymous wrote:
There are games built into iready, so sometimes the kids click through quickly to get to the games.
This was my 2nd grader. He has a speech condition, so it wasn’t too surprising his reading iReady was 66th percentile in the fall and 77th percentile in the winter, despite having a strong verbal CoGAT. Before his spring iReady, off handily said to me that he just clicks through his reading iReady. I explained that they look at it for AAP (we’re appealing his denial). With motivation to pay attention, he increased over 60 points since the winter.
Anonymous
05/14/2024 20:58
Subject: AAP still possible?
Can NNAT be more easily prepped than CogAT?
Anonymous
05/14/2024 14:38
Subject: Re:AAP still possible?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, you might be interested in page 66 of the AAP equity report from 4 years ago.
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf
It shows the mean, min, max, and standard deviation of test scores of kids admitted to AAP.
OP here. This is exactly the kind of info I like. It's odd to see that for white kids the range for NNAT is wider, with children scoring as low as 70 being AAP eligible (for Asians it's 93).
I'm not sure why people say it's the "least reliable" metric? Naglieri is a respected researcher, and on the face of it, it seems like a reasonable test of nonverbal intelligence. What are the complaints specifically? I found this wiki article on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naglieri_Nonverbal_Ability_Test) and it mentioned that there is more variabilty than expected and more high scores than expected, but without more context it's hard to interpret those claims.
It is the least comprehensive, since it's only testing one sliver of kids' intelligence. I wouldn't call it the "least reliable" in general, but it is in the way FCPS is using it. It is given in 1st grade, and kids can mature quite a bit between the NNAT and the CogAT testing windows. It's on a computer, so impulsive clicking can be a problem, especially when kids have been trained to do that in their iready testing. It's also likely the first timed test any of the kids have encountered.
Could you clarify what you mean? Does I-Ready somehow reward fast clicking? If so, yikes!
Thanks for explaining why the skepticism re: NNAT. Makes sense. In my DC's case, although we ran through a few tests, I could see DC making quick decisions and not carefully assessing all the options. There's definitely some test-taking knowledge/savvy that is being assessed along with actual non-verbal intelligence.
There are games built into iready, so sometimes the kids click through quickly to get to the games.
Oh gosh, that's terrible!
Anonymous
05/14/2024 14:29
Subject: Re:AAP still possible?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, you might be interested in page 66 of the AAP equity report from 4 years ago.
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf
It shows the mean, min, max, and standard deviation of test scores of kids admitted to AAP.
OP here. This is exactly the kind of info I like. It's odd to see that for white kids the range for NNAT is wider, with children scoring as low as 70 being AAP eligible (for Asians it's 93).
I'm not sure why people say it's the "least reliable" metric? Naglieri is a respected researcher, and on the face of it, it seems like a reasonable test of nonverbal intelligence. What are the complaints specifically? I found this wiki article on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naglieri_Nonverbal_Ability_Test) and it mentioned that there is more variabilty than expected and more high scores than expected, but without more context it's hard to interpret those claims.
It is the least comprehensive, since it's only testing one sliver of kids' intelligence. I wouldn't call it the "least reliable" in general, but it is in the way FCPS is using it. It is given in 1st grade, and kids can mature quite a bit between the NNAT and the CogAT testing windows. It's on a computer, so impulsive clicking can be a problem, especially when kids have been trained to do that in their iready testing. It's also likely the first timed test any of the kids have encountered.
Could you clarify what you mean? Does I-Ready somehow reward fast clicking? If so, yikes!
Thanks for explaining why the skepticism re: NNAT. Makes sense. In my DC's case, although we ran through a few tests, I could see DC making quick decisions and not carefully assessing all the options. There's definitely some test-taking knowledge/savvy that is being assessed along with actual non-verbal intelligence.
There are games built into iready, so sometimes the kids click through quickly to get to the games.
Anonymous
05/14/2024 14:19
Subject: Re:AAP still possible?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, you might be interested in page 66 of the AAP equity report from 4 years ago.
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf
It shows the mean, min, max, and standard deviation of test scores of kids admitted to AAP.
OP here. This is exactly the kind of info I like. It's odd to see that for white kids the range for NNAT is wider, with children scoring as low as 70 being AAP eligible (for Asians it's 93).
I'm not sure why people say it's the "least reliable" metric? Naglieri is a respected researcher, and on the face of it, it seems like a reasonable test of nonverbal intelligence. What are the complaints specifically? I found this wiki article on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naglieri_Nonverbal_Ability_Test) and it mentioned that there is more variabilty than expected and more high scores than expected, but without more context it's hard to interpret those claims.
It is the least comprehensive, since it's only testing one sliver of kids' intelligence. I wouldn't call it the "least reliable" in general, but it is in the way FCPS is using it. It is given in 1st grade, and kids can mature quite a bit between the NNAT and the CogAT testing windows. It's on a computer, so impulsive clicking can be a problem, especially when kids have been trained to do that in their iready testing. It's also likely the first timed test any of the kids have encountered.
Could you clarify what you mean? Does I-Ready somehow reward fast clicking? If so, yikes!
Thanks for explaining why the skepticism re: NNAT. Makes sense. In my DC's case, although we ran through a few tests, I could see DC making quick decisions and not carefully assessing all the options. There's definitely some test-taking knowledge/savvy that is being assessed along with actual non-verbal intelligence.