Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GBRS is the most important factor. Then CogAT Q. Median CogAT V score for admitted kids is around 119.

This is interesting given common wisdom on DCUM, which suggests that kids must score at least in the upper 120s to have a real shot at admission. I'd bet the DCUM advice is pretty accurate for wealthy schools (representing the vast majority of DCUM posters) but substantially less so for higher-FARMs schools. For example, a student who scores a 115 on the CogAT verbal in a high-FARMs school where the average CogAT verbal score is only 95, arguably has a much greater need for differentiation than a student who scores 115 in a wealthy school where the average is 110.

Putting the whole race discussion aside, I found this to be the most interesting part of the report, particularly when you consider that the bulk of the admissions are not minorities. They can't pull a median down like this folks. Basic stats.

It was surprising to me, as well. Conventional dcum wisdom is that Verbal is the most important, Q is the middle, and NV is relatively unimportant. Admitted stats show that Q scores have the highest mean, with NV not too far behind and Verbal far in the rear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GBRS is the most important factor. Then CogAT Q. Median CogAT V score for admitted kids is around 119.

This is interesting given common wisdom on DCUM, which suggests that kids must score at least in the upper 120s to have a real shot at admission. I'd bet the DCUM advice is pretty accurate for wealthy schools (representing the vast majority of DCUM posters) but substantially less so for higher-FARMs schools. For example, a student who scores a 115 on the CogAT verbal in a high-FARMs school where the average CogAT verbal score is only 95, arguably has a much greater need for differentiation than a student who scores 115 in a wealthy school where the average is 110.

We live in a "non-TJ-mania" area and our center seems to be one of the better ones, leading me to think that our center population has a number of in-pool admits instead of parent-referred admits with lower stats.

Those mean NNAT and Cogat scores were surprising. They did confirm all the complaints about how kids are on grade level or below.

Don't assume parent referrals are actually low averages--we parent-referred our child who didn't take the NNAT because we weren't in the district and she scored 1 point below the cut-off on the Cogat. But she had a 145 WISC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GBRS is the most important factor. Then CogAT Q. Median CogAT V score for admitted kids is around 119.

This is interesting given common wisdom on DCUM, which suggests that kids must score at least in the upper 120s to have a real shot at admission. I'd bet the DCUM advice is pretty accurate for wealthy schools (representing the vast majority of DCUM posters) but substantially less so for higher-FARMs schools. For example, a student who scores a 115 on the CogAT verbal in a high-FARMs school where the average CogAT verbal score is only 95, arguably has a much greater need for differentiation than a student who scores 115 in a wealthy school where the average is 110.

Putting the whole race discussion aside, I found this to be the most interesting part of the report, particularly when you consider that the bulk of the admissions are not minorities. They can't pull a median down like this folks. Basic stats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GBRS is the most important factor. Then CogAT Q. Median CogAT V score for admitted kids is around 119.

This is interesting given common wisdom on DCUM, which suggests that kids must score at least in the upper 120s to have a real shot at admission. I'd bet the DCUM advice is pretty accurate for wealthy schools (representing the vast majority of DCUM posters) but substantially less so for higher-FARMs schools. For example, a student who scores a 115 on the CogAT verbal in a high-FARMs school where the average CogAT verbal score is only 95, arguably has a much greater need for differentiation than a student who scores 115 in a wealthy school where the average is 110.

We live in a "non-TJ-mania" area and our center seems to be one of the better ones, leading me to think that our center population has a number of in-pool admits instead of parent-referred admits with lower stats.

Those mean NNAT and Cogat scores were surprising. They did confirm all the complaints about how kids are on grade level or below.

Anonymous wrote:GBRS is the most important factor. Then CogAT Q. Median CogAT V score for admitted kids is around 119.

This is interesting given common wisdom on DCUM, which suggests that kids must score at least in the upper 120s to have a real shot at admission. I'd bet the DCUM advice is pretty accurate for wealthy schools (representing the vast majority of DCUM posters) but substantially less so for higher-FARMs schools. For example, a student who scores a 115 on the CogAT verbal in a high-FARMs school where the average CogAT verbal score is only 95, arguably has a much greater need for differentiation than a student who scores 115 in a wealthy school where the average is 110.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they discuss why some schools/regions find so few or many eligible kids? Some schools have 1 or 2 kids found eligible each year and some have 50% of their second grade....

I think a full time AART in every school is long overdue. We all have discussed on here that the part-timers just can’t do a good job and the report mentions that too.

Not surprised AT ALL that principals dislike AAP.

They don’t address it directly. I would suspect that the schools with low eligibility are high FARMs rate schools. The report calls out a smaller percentage of minority parents refer and there are GBRS differences based on race. Some of the schools who land so many kids in AAP would see a large decline if the test score were lowered and they did away with parent referrals. I also suspect removing the awards and letters of recommendation.

They also made a big deal about part time vs. full time AARTs. I wouldn't at all be surprised if schools with part time AARTs find very few kids eligible, or if they find a lot, it's largely through parent referrals and parental input. The AARTs don't have enough time to conduct lessons with K-2 and really get to know the kids. They don't have time to prepare a lot of files or go out of their way to encourage referrals. The schools with part time AARTs are also unlikely to have strong Young Scholars programs. The less the schools can do, the more parents will step in to refer their kids and provide materials. This will naturally benefit wealthier kids as well as motivated white and Asian parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When adjusted for test scores, an AA kid is more than 5 times more likely to be selected than a white or Asian kid with the same stats.

Now that is a disturbing stat.

If you want the full context, it's the first paragraph on page 27

It is test scores AND GBRS score. Several AA families have posted here that there are many teachers who give their AA lower than expected GBRS scores. The report goes on to in the next paragraph if you just look at NNAT the rate is 1.5 to 1.

The report does criticize the subjectivity of GBRS and recognizes that GBRS needs to be changed. I also would hope that if Young Scholars is expanded, then then AARTs would know the AA kids in their school better and be more able to advocate for them.

I'm not bothered by AA kids with the same stats being 5 times more likely to be selected. The white and Asian kids with the same test scores are much more likely to have prepped for the CogAT than the AA kid. So, if you adjust for prepping, the AA kid actually has a much higher natural score.

Anonymous wrote:Did they discuss why some schools/regions find so few or many eligible kids? Some schools have 1 or 2 kids found eligible each year and some have 50% of their second grade....

I think a full time AART in every school is long overdue. We all have discussed on here that the part-timers just can’t do a good job and the report mentions that too.

Not surprised AT ALL that principals dislike AAP.

They don’t address it directly. I would suspect that the schools with low eligibility are high FARMs rate schools. The report calls out a smaller percentage of minority parents refer and there are GBRS differences based on race. Some of the schools who land so many kids in AAP would see a large decline if the test score were lowered and they did away with parent referrals. I also suspect removing the awards and letters of recommendation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When adjusted for test scores, an AA kid is more than 5 times more likely to be selected than a white or Asian kid with the same stats.

Now that is a disturbing stat.

If you want the full context, it's the first paragraph on page 27

It is test scores AND GBRS score. Several AA families have posted here that there are many teachers who give their AA lower than expected GBRS scores. The report goes on to in the next paragraph if you just look at NNAT the rate is 1.5 to 1.

Anonymous wrote:Did they discuss why some schools/regions find so few or many eligible kids? Some schools have 1 or 2 kids found eligible each year and some have 50% of their second grade....

I think a full time AART in every school is long overdue. We all have discussed on here that the part-timers just can’t do a good job and the report mentions that too.

Not surprised AT ALL that principals dislike AAP.

Yes, they said something about doing it by region and having top 10% in that region eligible, for example.

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that they find the goal of AAP unclear, since a lot of the arguments on this site boil down to the same thing. Is AAP a program that identifies kids whose needs can't be met in a regular classroom, and then meets those kids' needs? Or is it a program that develops potential in kids who could benefit from that development? At the moment, it seems to fulfill the latter but not the former.

At the beginning and the end, they describe that the purpose of a gifted program is to serve gifted students who cannot be served in a regular classroom. And by doing away with parent referrals, the program would shrink considerably and would revert to its previous status as a gifted program first, advanced academics program second.

Did they discuss why some schools/regions find so few or many eligible kids? Some schools have 1 or 2 kids found eligible each year and some have 50% of their second grade....

I think a full time AART in every school is long overdue. We all have discussed on here that the part-timers just can’t do a good job and the report mentions that too.

Not surprised AT ALL that principals dislike AAP.

It's interesting that they find the goal of AAP unclear, since a lot of the arguments on this site boil down to the same thing. Is AAP a program that identifies kids whose needs can't be met in a regular classroom, and then meets those kids' needs? Or is it a program that develops potential in kids who could benefit from that development? At the moment, it seems to fulfill the latter but not the former.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am ok with getting rid of the NNAT.

I am too but I think that two tests are better than one, so I'd like it to be replaced with something else. Especially if they revise and de-emphasize the GBRS.

They seem to be viewing CogAT as 3 tests. I'd like to see some sort of achievement test as part of the profile. Most common core states use MAP testing scores as part of the gifted designation. Then, they could look for kids who are very advanced and kids who are not very advanced but show greater than normal growth.

Did they suggest de-emphasizing GBRS? I thought they just wanted FCPS to move to a gifted rating index that has actually been vetted and not just one that they made up.

Anonymous wrote:I am ok with getting rid of the NNAT.

I am too but I think that two tests are better than one, so I'd like it to be replaced with something else. Especially if they revise and de-emphasize the GBRS.