Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 14:08     Subject: 132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:Why would the pool be based on a 132 composite score compared to needing a 132 in any one section? I already have an AAP kid so this has zero to do with my own family, but I am wondering why the change.


Where are you finding the score benchmarks? I cannot find them on FCPS website? And, our counselor is being inundated with calls/emails.
I know she made the pool, as that's what the letter says, but it doesn't say the benchmarks for the two tests.
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 14:07     Subject: 132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Jack of all trades master of none, that's really stupid


I completely agree with this! There are some very bright kids who are well rounded. However, there are also children who are brilliant in a specific area. These children should not be overlooked. They are the ones who could make a real difference in the world someday (technology fields, etc.).


Also, most of the kids who are "well rounded" with very balanced scores are the ones who have been prepped by their parents. They have seen tutors, attended test-prep classes, or at least completed a few practice ones. They have been put in every extracurricular activity possible since the age of one. In my opinion, a well balanced score simply indicates that a child has prepared for the test. A score that is not as well balanced shows a child's true abilities.
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 14:03     Subject: 132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:
Jack of all trades master of none, that's really stupid


I completely agree with this! There are some very bright kids who are well rounded. However, there are also children who are brilliant in a specific area. These children should not be overlooked. They are the ones who could make a real difference in the world someday (technology fields, etc.).
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 13:58     Subject: 132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Sounds like they're aiming for kids who are more well-rounded, not just strong in one particular area.


Jack of all trades master of none, that's really stupid


More like master of all... since we're talking upper-90th percentile here. As someone pointed out upthread, if a kid is advanced in one particular area, that's what Level III pull-outs are for.


People good at math tend to not excel at english. I have seen cases where the math scores are off the charts with poor English / reading scores, that is true gifted.
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 13:53     Subject: 132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Sounds like they're aiming for kids who are more well-rounded, not just strong in one particular area.


Jack of all trades master of none, that's really stupid


More like master of all... since we're talking upper-90th percentile here. As someone pointed out upthread, if a kid is advanced in one particular area, that's what Level III pull-outs are for.
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 13:49     Subject: 132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:Sounds like they're aiming for kids who are more well-rounded, not just strong in one particular area.


Jack of all trades master of none, that's really stupid
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 13:47     Subject: Re:132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To the posters claiming that being older shouldn't mean your child scores higher, and from the letter included with the test results:

"The test appraises the level and pattern of developed abilities which are influenced by experiences both in and out of school."


So experiences out of school determine if they know which way the little triangle needs to point to?


Uh, no, but if child-A grew up going to library programs, had preschool, went on trips and museums, was talked to frequently by his parents and others in his life, was read to for years, did puzzles, Legos, imaginative and creative play, etc. that child MAY have different experiences that MAY affect his test results compared to a child who did not have the same experiences in the prior years.
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 13:03     Subject: Re:132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:To the posters claiming that being older shouldn't mean your child scores higher, and from the letter included with the test results:

"The test appraises the level and pattern of developed abilities which are influenced by experiences both in and out of school."


So experiences out of school determine if they know which way the little triangle needs to point to?
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 12:40     Subject: Re:132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:To the posters claiming that being older shouldn't mean your child scores higher, and from the letter included with the test results:

"The test appraises the level and pattern of developed abilities which are influenced by experiences both in and out of school."


Right...a younger kid may have more experiences than an older child relative to this test. Give it up, honey.
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 12:27     Subject: Re:132 Composite-- CogAT
To the posters claiming that being older shouldn't mean your child scores higher, and from the letter included with the test results:

"The test appraises the level and pattern of developed abilities which are influenced by experiences both in and out of school."
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 12:22     Subject: 132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Since this year the only score that counts for the pool is the composite (which is based on "Grade Scores" younger kids are at a disadvantage. When you compare "Age Scores" for oldest to youngest there is about a 10 point swing.

As the pool size gets smaller, the reliability goes down which is the problem with the "local scores".

When using non-age adjusted scores there is a fairly strong bias (about 10 percentile swing (or .4 standard deviation) against the younger since they have had less experience in school and life.



You are wrong on several levels. The composite is NOT based on "grade scores." Pull out your test results. It clearly lists the three category scores as well as the composite under "standard age score." The score the committee considers is in the age score section. Also, a younger child in the grade has no more experience in school than an older child. A younger student has been in school exactly the same number of years as an older student and has been taught exactly the same subjects. A child who turns eight in October should be graded on the same level as a child who turns eight in November. A child who turns eight in October should not be expected to know as much as a 3rd grader. A 3rd grader has had more instruction and experience than a 2nd grader. An older 2nd grader has had the same exact amount of instruction and experience as another 2nd grader.




It's not just about instruction received and knowledge retained. It's about the child's development. A child who is born in September (and went to school on time) could be 15 mos. younger than a child who was born in June/July and red-shirted. Mental development and logical reasoning changes as a child ages. It can be a significant difference that has nothing to do with the number of years a child has attended school. An older child has also had an extra year of life experience and "education" from his/her parents (i.e. explaining how things work and such). IMO (and apparently in the opinion of quantitative and developmental psychologists and neuropsychologists), having the benefit of an extra year of living and brain development DOES provide an advantage.... and the way to account for that is by age-norming the scores so younger kids are not DIS-advantaged.


If those younger students need to be graded on a curve to give them an advantage, they are not ready for the AAP program. All second graders should be scored on the same scale. They will be the attending class TOGETHER. This affects kids who went to school on-time (October and fall months) too.





Not any of the PPs, but my son has ADHD and is the youngest in his class. Developmentally there is a gap and the teacher works with him accordingly. He scored high on one subsection last year, but I remember all were age adjusted to show the gap. So he scored 134 in one subsection and it was 99% across the board, but he scored lower in the other subsections. Adjusted by birth date, he scored 99 and 96 (don't quote me but it was 99 and 90 something). When not adjusted it was something like 96 and 88 percent. He is doing fine in the program.
Anonymous
Post 01/20/2015 12:15     Subject: Re:132 Composite-- CogAT
Last year it was 132 in any subsection. I was told by a neighbor who supposedly has a friend in the "decision" panel that it was because the pool was too small last year with the 132 composite. I was told that the test changes every year and sometimes a group scores much higher than others, so they adjust accordingly to have a good size pool.
Anonymous
Post 01/19/2015 19:27     Subject: 132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Since this year the only score that counts for the pool is the composite (which is based on "Grade Scores" younger kids are at a disadvantage. When you compare "Age Scores" for oldest to youngest there is about a 10 point swing.

As the pool size gets smaller, the reliability goes down which is the problem with the "local scores".

When using non-age adjusted scores there is a fairly strong bias (about 10 percentile swing (or .4 standard deviation) against the younger since they have had less experience in school and life.



You are wrong on several levels. The composite is NOT based on "grade scores." Pull out your test results. It clearly lists the three category scores as well as the composite under "standard age score." The score the committee considers is in the age score section. Also, a younger child in the grade has no more experience in school than an older child. A younger student has been in school exactly the same number of years as an older student and has been taught exactly the same subjects. A child who turns eight in October should be graded on the same level as a child who turns eight in November. A child who turns eight in October should not be expected to know as much as a 3rd grader. A 3rd grader has had more instruction and experience than a 2nd grader. An older 2nd grader has had the same exact amount of instruction and experience as another 2nd grader.


It's not just about instruction received and knowledge retained. It's about the child's development. A child who is born in September (and went to school on time) could be 15 mos. younger than a child who was born in June/July and red-shirted. Mental development and logical reasoning changes as a child ages. It can be a significant difference that has nothing to do with the number of years a child has attended school. An older child has also had an extra year of life experience and "education" from his/her parents (i.e. explaining how things work and such). IMO (and apparently in the opinion of quantitative and developmental psychologists and neuropsychologists), having the benefit of an extra year of living and brain development DOES provide an advantage.... and the way to account for that is by age-norming the scores so younger kids are not DIS-advantaged.


If those younger students need to be graded on a curve to give them an advantage, they are not ready for the AAP program. All second graders should be scored on the same scale. They will be the attending class TOGETHER. This affects kids who went to school on-time (October and fall months) too.
Anonymous
Post 01/19/2015 19:00     Subject: 132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Since this year the only score that counts for the pool is the composite (which is based on "Grade Scores" younger kids are at a disadvantage. When you compare "Age Scores" for oldest to youngest there is about a 10 point swing.

As the pool size gets smaller, the reliability goes down which is the problem with the "local scores".

When using non-age adjusted scores there is a fairly strong bias (about 10 percentile swing (or .4 standard deviation) against the younger since they have had less experience in school and life.



You are wrong on several levels. The composite is NOT based on "grade scores." Pull out your test results. It clearly lists the three category scores as well as the composite under "standard age score." The score the committee considers is in the age score section. Also, a younger child in the grade has no more experience in school than an older child. A younger student has been in school exactly the same number of years as an older student and has been taught exactly the same subjects. A child who turns eight in October should be graded on the same level as a child who turns eight in November. A child who turns eight in October should not be expected to know as much as a 3rd grader. A 3rd grader has had more instruction and experience than a 2nd grader. An older 2nd grader has had the same exact amount of instruction and experience as another 2nd grader.


It's not just about instruction received and knowledge retained. It's about the child's development. A child who is born in September (and went to school on time) could be 15 mos. younger than a child who was born in June/July and red-shirted. Mental development and logical reasoning changes as a child ages. It can be a significant difference that has nothing to do with the number of years a child has attended school. An older child has also had an extra year of life experience and "education" from his/her parents (i.e. explaining how things work and such). IMO (and apparently in the opinion of quantitative and developmental psychologists and neuropsychologists), having the benefit of an extra year of living and brain development DOES provide an advantage.... and the way to account for that is by age-norming the scores so younger kids are not DIS-advantaged.
Anonymous
Post 01/19/2015 16:36     Subject: 132 Composite-- CogAT
Anonymous wrote:

Since this year the only score that counts for the pool is the composite (which is based on "Grade Scores" younger kids are at a disadvantage. When you compare "Age Scores" for oldest to youngest there is about a 10 point swing.

As the pool size gets smaller, the reliability goes down which is the problem with the "local scores".

When using non-age adjusted scores there is a fairly strong bias (about 10 percentile swing (or .4 standard deviation) against the younger since they have had less experience in school and life.



You are wrong on several levels. The composite is NOT based on "grade scores." Pull out your test results. It clearly lists the three category scores as well as the composite under "standard age score." The score the committee considers is in the age score section. Also, a younger child in the grade has no more experience in school than an older child. A younger student has been in school exactly the same number of years as an older student and has been taught exactly the same subjects. A child who turns eight in October should be graded on the same level as a child who turns eight in November. A child who turns eight in October should not be expected to know as much as a 3rd grader. A 3rd grader has had more instruction and experience than a 2nd grader. An older 2nd grader has had the same exact amount of instruction and experience as another 2nd grader.