Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For local norms, does anyone know if they are based on base school or school attended (for immersion or other magnet/lottery schools)? I know "in pool" doesn't actually impact chances, just another referral pathway. Just curious if anyone knows what "local" means in this case.

How do you know it doesn’t impact chances? I’ve seen somewhere that in pool acceptance rate is roughly 2/3 while out pool is 1/3. I am unable to provide any sources so who knows how much of this is true, but if it is wouldn’t that mean better chance of app when in pool?

This has been discussed quite a bit on this forum. Just having the label "in-pool" does not matter. However, what does matter is that this means the child's COGAT and NNAT scores are high. The AAP committee will look at the whole package, and having high COGAT/NNAT scores will be a point in their favor for sure.

Sure, although surely the committee is aware of the kind of prepping that goes on in some corners and for those with near perfect scores they might more critically evaluate the whole packet. But that's just arm-chair speculation.

I think that's true for packages that show big gaps between nnat/cogat and other criteria (HOPE, iready, score card). I also think it's odd that people think of prepping in a negative light. From my point of view, prepping means the parents are more involved and invested in the kids education. It's not like they cheat or anything during those tests. Plus, kids are prepped on all kinds of tests in school, starting with SOL in 3rd garde.

It's not odd at all and we probably don't need to rehash this conversation as it's well trodden territory in this forum. There are parents who essentially sign their kids up for courses to prepare for the CogAT. As in many, many hours of instruction and practice led by outside individuals on how to ace the test. This isn't the same as getting a book and helping the child get familiar with the test format. And FCPS is well aware, hence the increasingly "holistic" process intended to address the inequity this presents.

This really is not the norm. We live in McLean and most parents probably get a cogat book off amazon and take a few practice tests. This is not going to move a 100 kid to 140.

Yes, I didn't even know there were courses for CogAT prep, but I have purchased books and other tools, and I don't see any problem with that. We live in a low SES area but are not in a URM group. I guess that "helps" my kid because the in pool cutoffs could be lower. Given the poor quality of education in gen ed, who wouldn't try to get their children the best possible education the family can afford?

I also don't see a problem with that, and I'm not trying to imply that this level of prep is a widespread norm, but there is a substantial group of parents that do a lot more than go through a few practice books. Look up Sunshine Academy. They even do i-ready prep. Here are more details to show there clearly is a demand for this as they have multiple saturday sections:

"All 2nd graders in Fairfax County will take the CogAT(FxAT) test in the coming fall. To ensure our students are ready for the test, we will offer CogAT(FxAT) prep classes for 2nd graders. These classes will be held on Saturdays at Thoreau Middle School (2505 Cedar Ln, Vienna, VA 22180).

All of our materials are carefully tailored to fit your children’s needs. The Sunshine Academy curriculum is unique, enhanced with full length color practice tests, and has been proven to help students perform well on the CogAT(FxAT) test. Many students have achieved perfect scores on the test.

Throughout theCogAT(FxAT) prep classes, students will take 5 full-length color practice tests that encompass all of the tested concepts. The objective of these practice tests is to familiarize our students with sample questions they will face on test day, along with the format of the tests, including the symbols used and the number of questions in each test area.

The schedule is as follows:

Saturday

9:00am—11:00am

11:00am-1:00pm

2:00pm-4:00pm

4:00pm—6:00pm

September

7, 14, 21, 28

October

5

The first Saturday class will start on September 7th and each class will last for 2 hours."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For local norms, does anyone know if they are based on base school or school attended (for immersion or other magnet/lottery schools)? I know "in pool" doesn't actually impact chances, just another referral pathway. Just curious if anyone knows what "local" means in this case.

How do you know it doesn’t impact chances? I’ve seen somewhere that in pool acceptance rate is roughly 2/3 while out pool is 1/3. I am unable to provide any sources so who knows how much of this is true, but if it is wouldn’t that mean better chance of app when in pool?

This has been discussed quite a bit on this forum. Just having the label "in-pool" does not matter. However, what does matter is that this means the child's COGAT and NNAT scores are high. The AAP committee will look at the whole package, and having high COGAT/NNAT scores will be a point in their favor for sure.

Sure, although surely the committee is aware of the kind of prepping that goes on in some corners and for those with near perfect scores they might more critically evaluate the whole packet. But that's just arm-chair speculation.

I think that's true for packages that show big gaps between nnat/cogat and other criteria (HOPE, iready, score card). I also think it's odd that people think of prepping in a negative light. From my point of view, prepping means the parents are more involved and invested in the kids education. It's not like they cheat or anything during those tests. Plus, kids are prepped on all kinds of tests in school, starting with SOL in 3rd garde.

It's not odd at all and we probably don't need to rehash this conversation as it's well trodden territory in this forum. There are parents who essentially sign their kids up for courses to prepare for the CogAT. As in many, many hours of instruction and practice led by outside individuals on how to ace the test. This isn't the same as getting a book and helping the child get familiar with the test format. And FCPS is well aware, hence the increasingly "holistic" process intended to address the inequity this presents.

This really is not the norm. We live in McLean and most parents probably get a cogat book off amazon and take a few practice tests. This is not going to move a 100 kid to 140.

Yes, I didn't even know there were courses for CogAT prep, but I have purchased books and other tools, and I don't see any problem with that. We live in a low SES area but are not in a URM group. I guess that "helps" my kid because the in pool cutoffs could be lower. Given the poor quality of education in gen ed, who wouldn't try to get their children the best possible education the family can afford?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For local norms, does anyone know if they are based on base school or school attended (for immersion or other magnet/lottery schools)? I know "in pool" doesn't actually impact chances, just another referral pathway. Just curious if anyone knows what "local" means in this case.

How do you know it doesn’t impact chances? I’ve seen somewhere that in pool acceptance rate is roughly 2/3 while out pool is 1/3. I am unable to provide any sources so who knows how much of this is true, but if it is wouldn’t that mean better chance of app when in pool?

This has been discussed quite a bit on this forum. Just having the label "in-pool" does not matter. However, what does matter is that this means the child's COGAT and NNAT scores are high. The AAP committee will look at the whole package, and having high COGAT/NNAT scores will be a point in their favor for sure.

Sure, although surely the committee is aware of the kind of prepping that goes on in some corners and for those with near perfect scores they might more critically evaluate the whole packet. But that's just arm-chair speculation.

I think that's true for packages that show big gaps between nnat/cogat and other criteria (HOPE, iready, score card). I also think it's odd that people think of prepping in a negative light. From my point of view, prepping means the parents are more involved and invested in the kids education. It's not like they cheat or anything during those tests. Plus, kids are prepped on all kinds of tests in school, starting with SOL in 3rd garde.

It's not odd at all and we probably don't need to rehash this conversation as it's well trodden territory in this forum. There are parents who essentially sign their kids up for courses to prepare for the CogAT. As in many, many hours of instruction and practice led by outside individuals on how to ace the test. This isn't the same as getting a book and helping the child get familiar with the test format. And FCPS is well aware, hence the increasingly "holistic" process intended to address the inequity this presents.

This really is not the norm. We live in McLean and most parents probably get a cogat book off amazon and take a few practice tests. This is not going to move a 100 kid to 140.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For local norms, does anyone know if they are based on base school or school attended (for immersion or other magnet/lottery schools)? I know "in pool" doesn't actually impact chances, just another referral pathway. Just curious if anyone knows what "local" means in this case.

How do you know it doesn’t impact chances? I’ve seen somewhere that in pool acceptance rate is roughly 2/3 while out pool is 1/3. I am unable to provide any sources so who knows how much of this is true, but if it is wouldn’t that mean better chance of app when in pool?

My understanding it is one data point among many and screening is the same for in-pool and parent referred. Since there are many bright students who are parent referred yet might miss this cut off by small margin, and there are also many in-pool kids who are prepped and will not necessarily look as compelling on other data points (e.g., the HOPE and report cards), being in-pool may not confer as much of an advantage as it used to. Since they are trying to catch those who would not be screened otherwise but may need services, it doesn't make sense to consider this as a leg up. It's just one of many indicators that a child may need services.

I would think with the change in local norms, being in pool would mean more in pool kids would get in. At our high SES schools, you would need 140+ to be top 10%. I would also think at lower SES schools, the top 10% there would highly be likely placed in LIV at their local or center school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For local norms, does anyone know if they are based on base school or school attended (for immersion or other magnet/lottery schools)? I know "in pool" doesn't actually impact chances, just another referral pathway. Just curious if anyone knows what "local" means in this case.

How do you know it doesn’t impact chances? I’ve seen somewhere that in pool acceptance rate is roughly 2/3 while out pool is 1/3. I am unable to provide any sources so who knows how much of this is true, but if it is wouldn’t that mean better chance of app when in pool?

This has been discussed quite a bit on this forum. Just having the label "in-pool" does not matter. However, what does matter is that this means the child's COGAT and NNAT scores are high. The AAP committee will look at the whole package, and having high COGAT/NNAT scores will be a point in their favor for sure.

Sure, although surely the committee is aware of the kind of prepping that goes on in some corners and for those with near perfect scores they might more critically evaluate the whole packet. But that's just arm-chair speculation.

I think that's true for packages that show big gaps between nnat/cogat and other criteria (HOPE, iready, score card). I also think it's odd that people think of prepping in a negative light. From my point of view, prepping means the parents are more involved and invested in the kids education. It's not like they cheat or anything during those tests. Plus, kids are prepped on all kinds of tests in school, starting with SOL in 3rd garde.

It's not odd at all and we probably don't need to rehash this conversation as it's well trodden territory in this forum. There are parents who essentially sign their kids up for courses to prepare for the CogAT. As in many, many hours of instruction and practice led by outside individuals on how to ace the test. This isn't the same as getting a book and helping the child get familiar with the test format. And FCPS is well aware, hence the increasingly "holistic" process intended to address the inequity this presents.

We didn’t get anything in the take home folders this week and didn’t receive an in pool notification. I guess we will continue to wait. 22003

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For local norms, does anyone know if they are based on base school or school attended (for immersion or other magnet/lottery schools)? I know "in pool" doesn't actually impact chances, just another referral pathway. Just curious if anyone knows what "local" means in this case.

How do you know it doesn’t impact chances? I’ve seen somewhere that in pool acceptance rate is roughly 2/3 while out pool is 1/3. I am unable to provide any sources so who knows how much of this is true, but if it is wouldn’t that mean better chance of app when in pool?

This has been discussed quite a bit on this forum. Just having the label "in-pool" does not matter. However, what does matter is that this means the child's COGAT and NNAT scores are high. The AAP committee will look at the whole package, and having high COGAT/NNAT scores will be a point in their favor for sure.

Sure, although surely the committee is aware of the kind of prepping that goes on in some corners and for those with near perfect scores they might more critically evaluate the whole packet. But that's just arm-chair speculation.

I think that's true for packages that show big gaps between nnat/cogat and other criteria (HOPE, iready, score card). I also think it's odd that people think of prepping in a negative light. From my point of view, prepping means the parents are more involved and invested in the kids education. It's not like they cheat or anything during those tests. Plus, kids are prepped on all kinds of tests in school, starting with SOL in 3rd garde.

Anonymous wrote:The chances of getting accepted in pool are going to be higher because those kids will naturally have higher scores.

Being in pool by itself doesn't "impact" chances, but it is correlated with higher chances to begin with.

This. If the in-pool cutoff is a 136 CogAT, the in-pool kid with a 136 doesn't have a better chance than the not-in-pool kid with a 135. The committee would view those scores as being essentially the same. Being in-pool does not in and of itself grant bonus points. The in-pool kid with a 140 has better chances than the not in pool kid with a 125, simply because the test scores are higher.

Also, keep in mind that kids who are in pool may still have bad work samples, a low HOPE rating, low iready scores, or an uneven profile (like very high NNAT and lower CogAT or a serious deficiency in one of Q or V). In pool kids like that are less likely to be admitted. Non pool kids with high iready scores, high HOPE ratings, and strong samples are likely to get in. It really is holistic.

Anonymous wrote:When you look at the cover page of the packet, I don't even see where it says a student is "in pool" or not. So who knows if the readers/committee even knows when they are looking at a packet.

My AART said the evaluation process is "the same" for parent referred and in pool so I would assume that they do not stamp the packet with "in pool".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For local norms, does anyone know if they are based on base school or school attended (for immersion or other magnet/lottery schools)? I know "in pool" doesn't actually impact chances, just another referral pathway. Just curious if anyone knows what "local" means in this case.

How do you know it doesn’t impact chances? I’ve seen somewhere that in pool acceptance rate is roughly 2/3 while out pool is 1/3. I am unable to provide any sources so who knows how much of this is true, but if it is wouldn’t that mean better chance of app when in pool?

This has been discussed quite a bit on this forum. Just having the label "in-pool" does not matter. However, what does matter is that this means the child's COGAT and NNAT scores are high. The AAP committee will look at the whole package, and having high COGAT/NNAT scores will be a point in their favor for sure.

Sure, although surely the committee is aware of the kind of prepping that goes on in some corners and for those with near perfect scores they might more critically evaluate the whole packet. But that's just arm-chair speculation.

When you look at the cover page of the packet, I don't even see where it says a student is "in pool" or not. So who knows if the readers/committee even knows when they are looking at a packet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For local norms, does anyone know if they are based on base school or school attended (for immersion or other magnet/lottery schools)? I know "in pool" doesn't actually impact chances, just another referral pathway. Just curious if anyone knows what "local" means in this case.

How do you know it doesn’t impact chances? I’ve seen somewhere that in pool acceptance rate is roughly 2/3 while out pool is 1/3. I am unable to provide any sources so who knows how much of this is true, but if it is wouldn’t that mean better chance of app when in pool?

My understanding it is one data point among many and screening is the same for in-pool and parent referred. Since there are many bright students who are parent referred yet might miss this cut off by small margin, and there are also many in-pool kids who are prepped and will not necessarily look as compelling on other data points (e.g., the HOPE and report cards), being in-pool may not confer as much of an advantage as it used to. Since they are trying to catch those who would not be screened otherwise but may need services, it doesn't make sense to consider this as a leg up. It's just one of many indicators that a child may need services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For local norms, does anyone know if they are based on base school or school attended (for immersion or other magnet/lottery schools)? I know "in pool" doesn't actually impact chances, just another referral pathway. Just curious if anyone knows what "local" means in this case.

How do you know it doesn’t impact chances? I’ve seen somewhere that in pool acceptance rate is roughly 2/3 while out pool is 1/3. I am unable to provide any sources so who knows how much of this is true, but if it is wouldn’t that mean better chance of app when in pool?

This has been discussed quite a bit on this forum. Just having the label "in-pool" does not matter. However, what does matter is that this means the child's COGAT and NNAT scores are high. The AAP committee will look at the whole package, and having high COGAT/NNAT scores will be a point in their favor for sure.

The chances of getting accepted in pool are going to be higher because those kids will naturally have higher scores.

Being in pool by itself doesn't "impact" chances, but it is correlated with higher chances to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:For local norms, does anyone know if they are based on base school or school attended (for immersion or other magnet/lottery schools)? I know "in pool" doesn't actually impact chances, just another referral pathway. Just curious if anyone knows what "local" means in this case.

How do you know it doesn’t impact chances? I’ve seen somewhere that in pool acceptance rate is roughly 2/3 while out pool is 1/3. I am unable to provide any sources so who knows how much of this is true, but if it is wouldn’t that mean better chance of app when in pool?