Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Totally fair. Someone did post a url that had a PowerPoint that made it seem like the distribution was 100 with a std dev of 15 or 16, but it was not a bastion of clarity.

Immaterial now, but in case anyone is keeping track for future years, 139 on NGAT was not a universal screener score for my kid.

I'm the PP who posted the link. Assuming the sample report in the slide describes the same set of 3 tests that FCPS 2nd graders took, it seems clear to me that total standard score as well as the 3 individual standard scores are based on the same normal distribution with mean 100 and sd 15. Note that the percentile is given for total score in that sample report. Disclaimer is that I have no way of being certain that it is indeed the same scoring and sample that generated FCPS results.

So total score 130+ likely still means the student's total of 3 tests is better than 2sd above national average. A plausible guess is that the individual total score just sums the 3 raw scores (none of which are known to us) and then was mapped to the national sample distribution of such raw score totals.

Regardless, it is surprising that 139 total score wasn't enough to be in top 10% within that school. In statistical sense, a small (=high sampling error) AND very selective (=high sampling bias) sample can still make that happen.

My understanding is that that slide was for a version where the total score is also maxed at 160. Apparently there are two ways to combine, one maxed at 160 and the other at 175.

Regardless, 139 not making the cut seems statistically unlikely, but likely better explained by a model with a higher standard deviation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how many numerical points each percentage point adds?

There is no point system. It’s holistic once they are in the review pool.

I meant on the exam score. For instance, a score of 128 is 93%. Would a score of 148 be, for instance, in 99%?

The distribution is bell shaped, so each percentage point corresponds with a different number of numerical points. Also, at the top, anything over a certain number is 99th percentile.

I think it is very unfair to only consider the NGAT. I know my child scored 98th in NNAT and 93 in NGAT. So we just discard the score of kids who did well in that? Very unfair. Don’t give a test you are going to toss.

98th percentile in the NGAT might not get you in-pool at most schools. It used to be the county wide cut off was at the 99th percentile.

This area has a lot of educated parents with graduate degrees. That tends to translate to kids who are advanced in school because their parents have been reading to them and exposing them to academic material from a young age. Genetically, it is likely that their parents are above average intelligence to smart, which means the kids are likely above average intelligent to smart. This means that the advanced programs in this area are serving the top 1-2% in scores and not the top 10% that much of the rest of the country serves.

There are schools where the top 10% of kids are scoring in the 99.5% range.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how many numerical points each percentage point adds?

There is no point system. It’s holistic once they are in the review pool.

I meant on the exam score. For instance, a score of 128 is 93%. Would a score of 148 be, for instance, in 99%?

The distribution is bell shaped, so each percentage point corresponds with a different number of numerical points. Also, at the top, anything over a certain number is 99th percentile.

I think it is very unfair to only consider the NGAT. I know my child scored 98th in NNAT and 93 in NGAT. So we just discard the score of kids who did well in that? Very unfair. Don’t give a test you are going to toss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how many numerical points each percentage point adds?

There is no point system. It’s holistic once they are in the review pool.

I meant on the exam score. For instance, a score of 128 is 93%. Would a score of 148 be, for instance, in 99%?

The distribution is bell shaped, so each percentage point corresponds with a different number of numerical points. Also, at the top, anything over a certain number is 99th percentile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how many numerical points each percentage point adds?

There is no point system. It’s holistic once they are in the review pool.

I meant on the exam score. For instance, a score of 128 is 93%. Would a score of 148 be, for instance, in 99%?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how many numerical points each percentage point adds?

There is no point system. It’s holistic once they are in the review pool.

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already covered, but given the transition from Cogat to NGAT, is the first grade NNAT still part of the evaluation process? My DD did well enough on both (received screener email) but did extremely well on NNAT. Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Totally fair. Someone did post a url that had a PowerPoint that made it seem like the distribution was 100 with a std dev of 15 or 16, but it was not a bastion of clarity.

Immaterial now, but in case anyone is keeping track for future years, 139 on NGAT was not a universal screener score for my kid.

I'm the PP who posted the link. Assuming the sample report in the slide describes the same set of 3 tests that FCPS 2nd graders took, it seems clear to me that total standard score as well as the 3 individual standard scores are based on the same normal distribution with mean 100 and sd 15. Note that the percentile is given for total score in that sample report. Disclaimer is that I have no way of being certain that it is indeed the same scoring and sample that generated FCPS results.

So total score 130+ likely still means the student's total of 3 tests is better than 2sd above national average. A plausible guess is that the individual total score just sums the 3 raw scores (none of which are known to us) and then was mapped to the national sample distribution of such raw score totals.

Regardless, it is surprising that 139 total score wasn't enough to be in top 10% within that school. In statistical sense, a small (=high sampling error) AND very selective (=high sampling bias) sample can still make that happen.

My understanding is that that slide was for a version where the total score is also maxed at 160. Apparently there are two ways to combine, one maxed at 160 and the other at 175.

Regardless, 139 not making the cut seems statistically unlikely, but likely better explained by a model with a higher standard deviation?

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how many numerical points each percentage point adds?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With such a high cut off, I’m not really seeing it reflected in the AAP classroom instructions. The curriculum in language arts, social studies and science is not advanced at all and they just have a few more projects I believe. Math is advanced but only picks up speed in the middle of the 4th grade. I have two kids already in AAP and I’m not that impressed by the curriculum. It’s basically the same and for my younger one the cohort actually has a few very disruptive kids in their class which undermines the peer argument.

define disruptive. If you are referring to Defiant, argumentative, and constantly correct teachers and telling teachers a more efficient way, making passive aggressive jokes and emotional outbursts when not heard, that’s not disruptive, that’s an exceptionally gifted mind at play ( IQ test above 99.9%, usually above 145 on WISC tests). These kids cannot function in a normal classroom, general ed classroom teachers don’t understand them, they don’t obey, they process information very differently. If they remain in those class they will not thrive academically. The general classroom’s mission is to train future workforce that follow rules and obey society’s standards, and don’t thin on their own. Like most adults today, they get the news and believe it as it is, and never think of the deep implications and meaning, and whom might want you to believe that way. These kids mind don’t work like that they find issues and make things better, the last thing they want to do is learn something and accept it as it is, they test what they learned until it doesn’t work. Human society moves forward because of these type of people that challenge the status quo. When these kids move to a place with similar minds they feel heard and challenged the teacher together, AAP teachers are usually ok with these, half of my older kids’ class are like this, they pack together and challenge the teacher and back each other up. When he was in general ed classroom in 2nd grade, he was the one being yelled at constantly by the teacher, and eventually he told the teacher that she should go back to school instead of teaching.

Disruptive as in taking a classmates project and stomping on it, taking another classmates folder and throwing it across the room or pushing their classmates for fun. Also an AAP classroom is not filled with budding Einsteins! I know because I’ve already had two in this program in a very highly regarded center school. As the PP said, it is mainly a classroom of hard working kids who are ambitious and want to excel but in no way are they all going to challenge the status quo and change the fabric of human society.

Also if your child told their teacher to go back to school instead of teaching, that just reflects on your poor parenting. No matter how academically advanced a child is, disrespect and unkindness should never be tolerated.

I don’t know anything about kids stomping a classmate’s project and throwing homework across the room. But as human beings living in this world, we are all here to learn from each other and to experience, regardless your age, your label (teacher, student, parent). If a teacher is teaching something wrong, and the student is letting her know that, and because of her ego, she yells at the student to shut up, maybe she shouldn’t be a teacher, a teacher should be humble enough to learn from a student too. Like like us parents should be constantly learning from our children.

And your child should be humble enough to not yell at an adult and learn to follow the classroom rules. If you don’t like the classroom setting try homeschooling. Your thinking is so weird and odd! All the best to your little Newton/Einstein! Can’t wait till they figure out a way to populate life on Mars while yelling at their teachers!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With such a high cut off, I’m not really seeing it reflected in the AAP classroom instructions. The curriculum in language arts, social studies and science is not advanced at all and they just have a few more projects I believe. Math is advanced but only picks up speed in the middle of the 4th grade. I have two kids already in AAP and I’m not that impressed by the curriculum. It’s basically the same and for my younger one the cohort actually has a few very disruptive kids in their class which undermines the peer argument.

define disruptive. If you are referring to Defiant, argumentative, and constantly correct teachers and telling teachers a more efficient way, making passive aggressive jokes and emotional outbursts when not heard, that’s not disruptive, that’s an exceptionally gifted mind at play ( IQ test above 99.9%, usually above 145 on WISC tests). These kids cannot function in a normal classroom, general ed classroom teachers don’t understand them, they don’t obey, they process information very differently. If they remain in those class they will not thrive academically. The general classroom’s mission is to train future workforce that follow rules and obey society’s standards, and don’t thin on their own. Like most adults today, they get the news and believe it as it is, and never think of the deep implications and meaning, and whom might want you to believe that way. These kids mind don’t work like that they find issues and make things better, the last thing they want to do is learn something and accept it as it is, they test what they learned until it doesn’t work. Human society moves forward because of these type of people that challenge the status quo. When these kids move to a place with similar minds they feel heard and challenged the teacher together, AAP teachers are usually ok with these, half of my older kids’ class are like this, they pack together and challenge the teacher and back each other up. When he was in general ed classroom in 2nd grade, he was the one being yelled at constantly by the teacher, and eventually he told the teacher that she should go back to school instead of teaching.

The gifted children on the scale that you describe cannot and have never been educated in a group setting. They require individual tutoring. Luckily, there are very few of these.

Anonymous wrote:With such a high cut off, I’m not really seeing it reflected in the AAP classroom instructions. The curriculum in language arts, social studies and science is not advanced at all and they just have a few more projects I believe. Math is advanced but only picks up speed in the middle of the 4th grade. I have two kids already in AAP and I’m not that impressed by the curriculum. It’s basically the same and for my younger one the cohort actually has a few very disruptive kids in their class which undermines the peer argument.