Anonymous wrote:Why is this AAP, its selection, the arguments that follow so complicated? Why can't they categorize kids based on their report/grade cards every year and compartmentalize into separate classes? Maybe add Cogat/NNAT kinds of questions as part of regular grading. Each year based on how the student performs, their class next year should change. That way nobody gets to be in the gifted or non-gifted bucket.
Anonymous wrote:Newbie here. My kid has a composite score of 138 (99th) and a quantitative score of 150 (99th, looks like he only missed one question). His verbal is good but not AAP good (126, 96th when age based but only 92nd for grade based because he is a young summer birthday). His nonverbal was a weakness (scored 110, only 70th for age based and 68th for grade based).
What are his chances? Don't know what his teacher form will say, he is a rule follower and not a behavioral concern but he is "bouncy" and chatty and kind of socially awkward (but never mean...) , probably has ADHD honestly
Anonymous wrote:Vendor administering Cogat had technical issues on first day and students in 2nd grade in FCPS started the Verbal section late, then following two days of test got postponed for a week or so. Everywhere I check, it says grade 2 Cogat is a total of 154 questions. Test scores for my daughter shows only 138 questions with the Verbal only having 36 questions. Vendor won't comment and school says FCPS actually administers a special shortened version of the test. However, the percentile ranks are based on a nationally represented sample. How can scores over 154 questions be compared to those over 138? Am I missing anything here? Can anyone confirm that their 2nd grade Cogat test scores in FCPS only had 36 questions attempted for the Verbal section? Thanks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:According to this group the NNAT is the least-reliable and least-regarded metric. Who knows if that's true 🤷
It’s not according to this group. The AAP equity report showed it to be the least reliable metric. The committee knows this.
The equity report states that blacks and hispanics score higher on GBRS than expected, given their IQ test scores. To me that means teachers are arbitrarily rating minority kids higher. That same report states asians are "disproportionally overrepresented", even though that group scored the highest on the standardized tests. The report was clearly written by people with an agenda.
However, I would guess the PP is correct. NNAT and CoGat really don't matter that much. It's all about the teacher's opinion (GBRS/HOPE)
To others, that means that they are not prepping their kids for standardized tests and likely need AAP even though their test scores are lower.
As it is, there is not way to justify this statement, but if "prepping" makes all the difference, let's have the schools prepare all the kids for the test and choose the ones who prepped best because that's more akin to how they will perform in the program. Preparation = improved performance
The gifted program is for gifted students. Not all students who are academically focused overachievers are gifted. Prepping for a psychoeducational evaluation completely defeats the purpose and renders the results invalid. If you enrolled your kid in cogat prep or in any way prepped them for it, the score is completely meaningless.
AAP is not exclusively for gifted students though; if it were, there would be a much smaller percentage of students accepted, not 20%+.
AAP is for ALL students who are willing to put in the effort for advanced academics. Racists keep repeating its exclusively for their kids whom they want to be called gifted. Thankfully FCPS is working on deleting the racist word "gifted" from all AAP literature.
How exactly is the word gifted racist? Please do share.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:According to this group the NNAT is the least-reliable and least-regarded metric. Who knows if that's true 🤷
It’s not according to this group. The AAP equity report showed it to be the least reliable metric. The committee knows this.
The equity report states that blacks and hispanics score higher on GBRS than expected, given their IQ test scores. To me that means teachers are arbitrarily rating minority kids higher. That same report states asians are "disproportionally overrepresented", even though that group scored the highest on the standardized tests. The report was clearly written by people with an agenda.
However, I would guess the PP is correct. NNAT and CoGat really don't matter that much. It's all about the teacher's opinion (GBRS/HOPE)
To others, that means that they are not prepping their kids for standardized tests and likely need AAP even though their test scores are lower.
As it is, there is not way to justify this statement, but if "prepping" makes all the difference, let's have the schools prepare all the kids for the test and choose the ones who prepped best because that's more akin to how they will perform in the program. Preparation = improved performance
The gifted program is for gifted students. Not all students who are academically focused overachievers are gifted. Prepping for a psychoeducational evaluation completely defeats the purpose and renders the results invalid. If you enrolled your kid in cogat prep or in any way prepped them for it, the score is completely meaningless.
AAP is not exclusively for gifted students though; if it were, there would be a much smaller percentage of students accepted, not 20%+.
AAP is for ALL students who are willing to put in the effort for advanced academics. Racists keep repeating its exclusively for their kids whom they want to be called gifted. Thankfully FCPS is working on deleting the racist word "gifted" from all AAP literature.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:According to this group the NNAT is the least-reliable and least-regarded metric. Who knows if that's true 🤷
It’s not according to this group. The AAP equity report showed it to be the least reliable metric. The committee knows this.
The equity report states that blacks and hispanics score higher on GBRS than expected, given their IQ test scores. To me that means teachers are arbitrarily rating minority kids higher. That same report states asians are "disproportionally overrepresented", even though that group scored the highest on the standardized tests. The report was clearly written by people with an agenda.
However, I would guess the PP is correct. NNAT and CoGat really don't matter that much. It's all about the teacher's opinion (GBRS/HOPE)
To others, that means that they are not prepping their kids for standardized tests and likely need AAP even though their test scores are lower.
As it is, there is not way to justify this statement, but if "prepping" makes all the difference, let's have the schools prepare all the kids for the test and choose the ones who prepped best because that's more akin to how they will perform in the program. Preparation = improved performance
The gifted program is for gifted students. Not all students who are academically focused overachievers are gifted. Prepping for a psychoeducational evaluation completely defeats the purpose and renders the results invalid. If you enrolled your kid in cogat prep or in any way prepped them for it, the score is completely meaningless.
AAP is not exclusively for gifted students though; if it were, there would be a much smaller percentage of students accepted, not 20%+.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:According to this group the NNAT is the least-reliable and least-regarded metric. Who knows if that's true 🤷
It’s not according to this group. The AAP equity report showed it to be the least reliable metric. The committee knows this.
The equity report states that blacks and hispanics score higher on GBRS than expected, given their IQ test scores. To me that means teachers are arbitrarily rating minority kids higher. That same report states asians are "disproportionally overrepresented", even though that group scored the highest on the standardized tests. The report was clearly written by people with an agenda.
However, I would guess the PP is correct. NNAT and CoGat really don't matter that much. It's all about the teacher's opinion (GBRS/HOPE)
To others, that means that they are not prepping their kids for standardized tests and likely need AAP even though their test scores are lower.
As it is, there is not way to justify this statement, but if "prepping" makes all the difference, let's have the schools prepare all the kids for the test and choose the ones who prepped best because that's more akin to how they will perform in the program. Preparation = improved performance
The gifted program is for gifted students. Not all students who are academically focused overachievers are gifted. Prepping for a psychoeducational evaluation completely defeats the purpose and renders the results invalid. If you enrolled your kid in cogat prep or in any way prepped them for it, the score is completely meaningless.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you haven't applied already you've missed this year's window. I would suggest reading the FCPS AAP website and applying in the Fall.
Pp here. Thank you. Planning on applying next year hence doing reaearch now. I am just wrapping my head around how to CogAT is used. It is the raw or simply the standard number that is used?
Anonymous wrote:If you haven't applied already you've missed this year's window. I would suggest reading the FCPS AAP website and applying in the Fall.