Anonymous wrote:
But I wonder how the sheer number of kids in the pool is going to change how the committee screens the files. In years past, there were kids in the pool who scored in the average range on everything but one subsection of the cogat, and those kids were likely found ineligible unless they had an abnormally high GBRS. Using the cogat composite instead of one subsection score to determine the pool has eliminated that phenomenon. So now (GBRS aside) we have 3 categories of kids...those who were parent referred, those who scored high on either NNAT or Cogat, and those who scored high on both.

It makes me wonder if the committee will view the files in a different light considering that there aren't as many average scorers automatically in the pool, but obviously, they can't find everyone eligible.

I do agree with a pp that kids who have 99th percentile on all test scores (including all subsections of the cogat) should be found eligible regardless of their file. It would definitely save the committee some time by not having to go through that stack of files.

Last night AAPAC was told that the central screening committee will look at all four CogAT scores -- the three subtests and the composite. The CogAT composite is simply used for the pool. The NNAT2 scores will also be looked at as well as the GBRS with commentary, and of course the work sample(s). It was re-emphasized at last night's meeting that center-eligibility is not simply based on a single test score.

My guess is that the 99th percentile kids are the easy ones. While I am not on the AAP screening committee, I have been on other screening committees, and 90% of the time are spent on 20% of the applicants. Most are easy (positive or negative).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still seems like 2500 kids in pool is way too many-I had heard usual number of kids in pool is about 1200 and that of those, 2/3rds are accepted.

Per the presentation at last night's AAPAC meeting, the "usual" number of kids in the pool is roughly 2,000. Historically, approximately 67% of these in-pool kids are found center-eligible. Historically, the average GBRS of the center-eligible kids is 13.

But I wonder how the sheer number of kids in the pool is going to change how the committee screens the files. In years past, there were kids in the pool who scored in the average range on everything but one subsection of the cogat, and those kids were likely found ineligible unless they had an abnormally high GBRS. Using the cogat composite instead of one subsection score to determine the pool has eliminated that phenomenon. So now (GBRS aside) we have 3 categories of kids...those who were parent referred, those who scored high on either NNAT or Cogat, and those who scored high on both.

It makes me wonder if the committee will view the files in a different light considering that there aren't as many average scorers automatically in the pool, but obviously, they can't find everyone eligible.

I do agree with a pp that kids who have 99th percentile on all test scores (including all subsections of the cogat) should be found eligible regardless of their file. It would definitely save the committee some time by not having to go through that stack of files.

12:36: The only problem is then suddenly there is a huge incentive to prep. My DD had a CogAT of 120, parental referred, accepts (with GBRS of 15).

With prep, and some steps to reduce test anxiety, I probably could have had her scores at least at the 135 level. So, prep becomes critical.

FYI, she is doing fine in AAP right now.

Anonymous wrote:Still seems like 2500 kids in pool is way too many-I had heard usual number of kids in pool is about 1200 and that of those, 2/3rds are accepted.

Per the presentation at last night's AAPAC meeting, the "usual" number of kids in the pool is roughly 2,000. Historically, approximately 67% of these in-pool kids are found center-eligible. Historically, the average GBRS of the center-eligible kids is 13.

Anonymous wrote:Is there even any training for the teachers on how to score a GBRS?

Yes, there is. A presentation and training video that FCPS uses to train teachers was presented/shown at last night's AAPAC meeting.

To 12:19, 100 is the nationwide average, not the fcps average. For example the average sat score at langley is 1200. That correlates to an average iq of 125 which is at the 94 percentile. Off the top of my head, the average sat score in fcps is circa 1100. That correlates to about an iq of 117.

This is my thought on the application process.

The cut off for the pool is usually at or about 130, which is 2 standard deviations from the norm.

If a student has scores 3 standard deviations from the norm, around 145+, then they should be automatically accepted into the program. That is an exceptional difference and clearly indicates a student who requires the differentiation.

The students who scored within the range of 2 standard deviations from the norm would go through the gbrs and work sample review, only rejected if there is a notable reason why they do not belong in the program, such as a significant gap between score, work samples and gbrs. Students just below the 2 standard deviations receive level 3 services, unless the gbrs is in the top 1%.

Some might argue that a kid might be prepped into that 3 deviations from the norm group. But think about it, if a kid can work hard enough to jump his/her score 15 points to go from the top 98% to the top 99%, then that is a child who would clearly succeed in the AAP classroom. The kids who are average and prepped into the bottom of the 2nd deviation group would be mostly filtered out by gbrs and work samples.

Huh? Last time I checked, average was 100. That's the whole basis of the scale.

I don't think that is data... that's a claim.
They are trying to rope in desperate parents to sign up.

That's like saying there is plenty of data that men can enlarge their penis with a pill, or a data that "one weird old trick" can make you lose weight.

Isn't and IQ of 115-120ish pretty average for a FCPS classroom, thought? Is that even in the gifted range?

11:13: There is data showing prep can raise CogAT 15-20 pts, primarily collected by the test prep companies (so it may be suspect). There is no way to know for sure what it can do, because there is no way to do a true controlled study. Lets assume 15-20 pts is possible.

I think the nature of FCPS is any child with a decent GBRS (12+) and a prepped score of 135 (unprepped of 115) probably can handle the AAP workload. Or, in other words, I am confident that any child with an IQ about 115-120 can handle the work load, baring other issues (2E at 115 might have problems).

An average child (90-110) probably would struggle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still seems like 2500 kids in pool is way too many-I had heard usual number of kids in pool is about 1200 and that of those, 2/3rds are accepted. Will they be forced to take more in AAP classes this year or will most of the pool kids get weeded out by GRBS? Also, seems like there shouldn't be much room for parent referred kids if the pool is so large.

As has been rehashed here repeatedly, a high test score is only one indicator of a gifted child (and a poor indicator, if the child has been coached). Unless you have a spectacularly biased teacher/committee, GBRS seems like a very fair weed-out process for all children, whether in pool or referred.

I don't see how a GBRS is a very fair weed out process. Is there even any training for the teachers on how to score a GBRS? What's considered a 1 by one teacher may be a 4 by another. A teacher who is 22 and brand new may rate a child quite differently than a teacher who has been teaching for 30 years. A teacher who has a classroom of 22 kids may know one outgoing child a heck of a lot better than a teacher of a shy child in a class or 30. Seriously, I think GBRS can be a pretty faulty indicator as well.

Sure, it can be. We've had that 22-year-old newbie in the past, and if she were assigned to write up my DC's GBRS on her own, you can bet I'd take a look at it and appeal if necessary. The school would likely be forced to bring in my DC's previous teachers to weigh in on a second GBRS.

However, I would be very surprised if they did not bring in a child's past teachers to weigh in for the first go-round, particularly if the classroom teacher were inexperienced. From what I understand, the GBRS is filled out by a (small) committee and is not just the work of an individual teacher.

I am surprised at the general lack of faith in FCPS teachers on this and other AAP threads. Is a teacher--despite the focus of her training and her familiarity with the county's requirements for AAP--automatically wrong when she doesn't agree with the parent? Again, you can always appeal if you think the ratings process was unfair.

Does anybody here actually know of a "coached/prepped" kid who did remarkably better than they would have otherwise? (i.e. Do you know of a kid who got super scores but found they were not able to keep up in AAP).

I am curious (even anecdotally). Because I don't believe that prepping has a drastic affect on the scores. I do think that it is helpful to know the format of the test, so that the kid isn't nervous or confused about what is expected. (It would probably be good if they gave all kids a "dry run" at a test just to get them comfortable a few days before the real one).

But I am highly skeptical that coaching would raise scores 20+ points.

So I don't think a high score would be a poor indicator of a gifted child, even if coached. I don't think you could "coach 'em up" that much... just ask Steve Spurrier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still seems like 2500 kids in pool is way too many-I had heard usual number of kids in pool is about 1200 and that of those, 2/3rds are accepted. Will they be forced to take more in AAP classes this year or will most of the pool kids get weeded out by GRBS? Also, seems like there shouldn't be much room for parent referred kids if the pool is so large.

As has been rehashed here repeatedly, a high test score is only one indicator of a gifted child (and a poor indicator, if the child has been coached). Unless you have a spectacularly biased teacher/committee, GBRS seems like a very fair weed-out process for all children, whether in pool or referred.

I don't see how a GBRS is a very fair weed out process. Is there even any training for the teachers on how to score a GBRS? What's considered a 1 by one teacher may be a 4 by another. A teacher who is 22 and brand new may rate a child quite differently than a teacher who has been teaching for 30 years. A teacher who has a classroom of 22 kids may know one outgoing child a heck of a lot better than a teacher of a shy child in a class or 30. Seriously, I think GBRS can be a pretty faulty indicator as well.