Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re the topic of prepping for the NNAT, I found this article. It's from 2013, but it does imply that prepping "artificially" raises NNAT scores. Significantly.

https://nycgiftedandtalented.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/nnat-test-score-distribution/

I am not sold that they were prepping as opposed to having high IQ parents like DC area ??

That's Lake Wobegon Syndrome at its finest. Fairfax county is no more special than any other higher income, urban area. Every urban area seems to be in the same situation, where an overabundance of kids score very highly on these tests, and then the people act as if their area is just brighter than everywhere else. Whatever "extra brightness" we might have is offset by the prevalence of elite private schools. It's ridiculous to imagine that kids in NYC or silicon valley, or Seattle, etc. are all prepping their ways to high scores, and yet people here aren't prepping- they're just smarter.

This area is filled with prep schools, which wouldn't exist if they weren't profitable. A lot of people at my kids' bus stop have talked about workbooks and prepping. The testingmom site listed in the article wouldn't exist if it weren't profitable. A ton of prep books are available on Amazon. If you think prepping isn't widespread, you're naive. Prepping also tends to improve scores on pretty much everything. Heck, why do you think major IQ tests keep their materials very private and will invalidate your results if they think you've prepped? It's clearly because prepping will increase scores. The NNAT and CogAT are no more special than any other tests.

I'm from NYC and parents hire tutors to prep their 3-4 year olds. NYC's GT system starts in kindergarten so these kids are taking these tests at age 4. Unlike in VA, there is no shame in it. Everyone preps. You would not even know to test your child if you were not an involved parent and it is a self selecting group. AAP in FCPS is far more inclusive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child had a 96 percentile and didn't get in. I didn't prep because we were told not to. Had I known that prepping is so widespread, of course i would have prepped. I feel like I have done a disservice to my child.

Was your kid in the pool?

No, not in pool.

Did you parent refer?

DP but yes and she said the kid got in on appeal.

That wan't me. I parent referred and did not get in. I didn't appeal... which I regret now that I see what it's like and all the other kids who got in. But, I still don't really get it. I mean, what if my child gets a similar WISC or a little lower. We wouldn't necessarily get in on appeal, right? I still don't understand all the low 90s and 80s who got in first round??!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child had a 96 percentile and didn't get in. I didn't prep because we were told not to. Had I known that prepping is so widespread, of course i would have prepped. I feel like I have done a disservice to my child.

Was your kid in the pool?

No, not in pool.

Did you parent refer?

DP but yes and she said the kid got in on appeal.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm just surprised that the central committee would override the feelings of the local committee (the ones who actually know the child) when the test scores are still very good.

Anonymous wrote:

Admission process is a mystery. What was your child COAGAT and NNAT score? What kind of work samples included in file?

Anonymous wrote:
If your child did not get in there could be other reasons that you are not sharing.

Anonymous wrote:
There are no fixed number of seats for AAP admission. FCPS decides the cut-off score based on "whatever" the criteria at that time. If Cogat score of 98th percentile is the base then that is the bottom-line. If they lower requirements to 97th percentile then parents of 96th percentile would question why not their kids and so on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, 6 sets of eyes view the file for no more than 5 minutes each. There isn't nearly enough time for the committee members to evaluate work samples for their merits or really review much of anything, other than the scores. So why would one child with 97th percentile CogATs, a very high GBRS, advanced math, above grade level reading group, and good grades get rejected, while another child with 90th percentile CogATs (or even lower. I know several of these) get in? Just what are the committee members seeing in that super brief glance at the work samples or in the parent referrals that is tipping the balance in favor of admissions for kids with really meh test scores? FWIW, the aart said that every year, the school committee members feel shocked by some of the kids who aren't admitted, because the files were really strong, and they're shocked by some of the ones who are admitted with very weak files.

I agree that the appeals process fixes things for the kids who otherwise fell through the cracks on the first pass. I'm annoyed that people on dcum as well as somewhat in real life are snotty about appeals, as if the kids who get in via appeal are somehow lesser than their kids.

I would think the teacher's assessment would count heavily.

I'm the PP with the kid who was initially rejected. My biggest beef with the whole process is the local committee, which was filled with teachers who knew my child exceptionally well and worked with her quite a lot, gave her a 15 GBRS, which is essentially saying that she needs AAP. It doesn't sit right with me to have a group of people who have never worked with my child take a very brief glance at her file, and then decide that they know better than the teachers who actually work with her every day as to the right educational environment. I would understand if they didn't let anyone in with lower than cutoff scores, and I would understand if my DD actually had mediocre test scores. I really don't understand how children within the SEM of the in-pool cutoff scores and with a very strong teacher assessment aren't admitted when many other kids with lower stats are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, 6 sets of eyes view the file for no more than 5 minutes each. There isn't nearly enough time for the committee members to evaluate work samples for their merits or really review much of anything, other than the scores. So why would one child with 97th percentile CogATs, a very high GBRS, advanced math, above grade level reading group, and good grades get rejected, while another child with 90th percentile CogATs (or even lower. I know several of these) get in? Just what are the committee members seeing in that super brief glance at the work samples or in the parent referrals that is tipping the balance in favor of admissions for kids with really meh test scores? FWIW, the aart said that every year, the school committee members feel shocked by some of the kids who aren't admitted, because the files were really strong, and they're shocked by some of the ones who are admitted with very weak files.

I agree that the appeals process fixes things for the kids who otherwise fell through the cracks on the first pass. I'm annoyed that people on dcum as well as somewhat in real life are snotty about appeals, as if the kids who get in via appeal are somehow lesser than their kids.

I would think the teacher's assessment would count heavily.

I'm the PP with the kid who was initially rejected. My biggest beef with the whole process is the local committee, which was filled with teachers who knew my child exceptionally well and worked with her quite a lot, gave her a 15 GBRS, which is essentially saying that she needs AAP. It doesn't sit right with me to have a group of people who have never worked with my child take a very brief glance at her file, and then decide that they know better than the teachers who actually work with her every day as to the right educational environment. I would understand if they didn't let anyone in with lower than cutoff scores, and I would understand if my DD actually had mediocre test scores. I really don't understand how children within the SEM of the in-pool cutoff scores and with a very strong teacher assessment aren't admitted when many other kids with lower stats are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. The process isn't arbitrary. SIX committee members review the file before it gets admitted and that doesn't even mean for those that have 3 yes'...in which case 12 will end up reviewing it. Except for the sixth person, ALL REVIEWS ARE BLIND (as in, they have no idea what the other committee members were recommending regarding admission.

One careless mistake doesn't make a "huge difference." Lots of careless mistakes can make a huge difference OR maybe the kid legitimately missed several questions and then had a careless mistake and that affected things. One mistake? GMAFB

You seem unreasonably worked up and defensive over this. Was your child one of the one who had low test scores and somehow got in, making you cling to some notion the AAP panel is perfect and recognized some special giftedness in your child or something?

1. Every process in which someone holistically reviews someone else's application or resume is imperfect. No one has come up with the "right" formula for college admissions or job applications, and even if the SAME person is reviewing things, that person's opinions can be swayed by how early in the process they're reviewing the file, how strong the previous file was, or nebulous things in the file that they "relate to" or don't (case in point: The AART told everyone not to say that their kids needed AAP because they were bored or school was too easy, since that apparently negatively disposes the panel members toward your child). Much like college admissions, the AAP panel is AT BEST spending 5 minutes reviewing each file, which means they're making a snap judgement. Why do you assume that the AAP system is flawless when nothing else can manage to be so? Even the AAP panel seems to understand that there's a reasonable error rate in the process. If not, they wouldn't allow for appeals or admit anyone on appeal.

2. My kid had a 130 SAS on one section with only 3 incorrect answers out of 52 problems (actually, 2 incorrect and 1 unanswered). One more correct answer would have led to a 135+ on that section. Since the composite was just a hair under the in-pool cutoff, that one question could have made a huge difference. Kids generally don't get rejected with 98th percentile CogAT and high GBRS, but apparently they can be with 97th percentile CogAT and the same GBRS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re the topic of prepping for the NNAT, I found this article. It's from 2013, but it does imply that prepping "artificially" raises NNAT scores. Significantly.

https://nycgiftedandtalented.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/nnat-test-score-distribution/

I am not sold that they were prepping as opposed to having high IQ parents like DC area ??

That's Lake Wobegon Syndrome at its finest. Fairfax county is no more special than any other higher income, urban area. Every urban area seems to be in the same situation, where an overabundance of kids score very highly on these tests, and then the people act as if their area is just brighter than everywhere else. Whatever "extra brightness" we might have is offset by the prevalence of elite private schools. It's ridiculous to imagine that kids in NYC or silicon valley, or Seattle, etc. are all prepping their ways to high scores, and yet people here aren't prepping- they're just smarter.

This area is filled with prep schools, which wouldn't exist if they weren't profitable. A lot of people at my kids' bus stop have talked about workbooks and prepping. The testingmom site listed in the article wouldn't exist if it weren't profitable. A ton of prep books are available on Amazon. If you think prepping isn't widespread, you're naive. Prepping also tends to improve scores on pretty much everything. Heck, why do you think major IQ tests keep their materials very private and will invalidate your results if they think you've prepped? It's clearly because prepping will increase scores. The NNAT and CogAT are no more special than any other tests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A minimum of 6 sets of eyes viewing each file separately along with the appeals process is a pretty extensive way to ensure very few kids call through the cracks. If anything, admission is too inclusive.

Sure, 6 sets of eyes view the file for no more than 5 minutes each. There isn't nearly enough time for the committee members to evaluate work samples for their merits or really review much of anything, other than the scores. So why would one child with 97th percentile CogATs, a very high GBRS, advanced math, above grade level reading group, and good grades get rejected, while another child with 90th percentile CogATs (or even lower. I know several of these) get in? Just what are the committee members seeing in that super brief glance at the work samples or in the parent referrals that is tipping the balance in favor of admissions for kids with really meh test scores? FWIW, the aart said that every year, the school committee members feel shocked by some of the kids who aren't admitted, because the files were really strong, and they're shocked by some of the ones who are admitted with very weak files.

I agree that the appeals process fixes things for the kids who otherwise fell through the cracks on the first pass. I'm annoyed that people on dcum as well as somewhat in real life are snotty about appeals, as if the kids who get in via appeal are somehow lesser than their kids.

I would think the teacher's assessment would count heavily.

The ones with good scores didn't make it the first round - typically also with low GBRS scores.

Yes, and the GBRS score is, by definition, subjective.

Makes sense to have a heavily weighed data point be subjective. The other two heavily weighted ones (test results) are not. Remember the gbrs is set by a committee, not one person.

Yeah but the other members aside from the teacher don't really know the kids. At least at our school the AART does not do any pullouts prior to third grade so it's not even consistent across FCPS as to how many people know the kid they are reviewing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, 6 sets of eyes view the file for no more than 5 minutes each. There isn't nearly enough time for the committee members to evaluate work samples for their merits or really review much of anything, other than the scores. So why would one child with 97th percentile CogATs, a very high GBRS, advanced math, above grade level reading group, and good grades get rejected, while another child with 90th percentile CogATs (or even lower. I know several of these) get in? Just what are the committee members seeing in that super brief glance at the work samples or in the parent referrals that is tipping the balance in favor of admissions for kids with really meh test scores? FWIW, the aart said that every year, the school committee members feel shocked by some of the kids who aren't admitted, because the files were really strong, and they're shocked by some of the ones who are admitted with very weak files.

I agree that the appeals process fixes things for the kids who otherwise fell through the cracks on the first pass. I'm annoyed that people on dcum as well as somewhat in real life are snotty about appeals, as if the kids who get in via appeal are somehow lesser than their kids.

I would think the teacher's assessment would count heavily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re the topic of prepping for the NNAT, I found this article. It's from 2013, but it does imply that prepping "artificially" raises NNAT scores. Significantly.

https://nycgiftedandtalented.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/nnat-test-score-distribution/

I am not sold that they were prepping as opposed to having high IQ parents like DC area ??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A minimum of 6 sets of eyes viewing each file separately along with the appeals process is a pretty extensive way to ensure very few kids call through the cracks. If anything, admission is too inclusive.

Sure, 6 sets of eyes view the file for no more than 5 minutes each. There isn't nearly enough time for the committee members to evaluate work samples for their merits or really review much of anything, other than the scores. So why would one child with 97th percentile CogATs, a very high GBRS, advanced math, above grade level reading group, and good grades get rejected, while another child with 90th percentile CogATs (or even lower. I know several of these) get in? Just what are the committee members seeing in that super brief glance at the work samples or in the parent referrals that is tipping the balance in favor of admissions for kids with really meh test scores? FWIW, the aart said that every year, the school committee members feel shocked by some of the kids who aren't admitted, because the files were really strong, and they're shocked by some of the ones who are admitted with very weak files.

I agree that the appeals process fixes things for the kids who otherwise fell through the cracks on the first pass. I'm annoyed that people on dcum as well as somewhat in real life are snotty about appeals, as if the kids who get in via appeal are somehow lesser than their kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A minimum of 6 sets of eyes viewing each file separately along with the appeals process is a pretty extensive way to ensure very few kids call through the cracks. If anything, admission is too inclusive.

Sure, 6 sets of eyes view the file for no more than 5 minutes each. There isn't nearly enough time for the committee members to evaluate work samples for their merits or really review much of anything, other than the scores. So why would one child with 97th percentile CogATs, a very high GBRS, advanced math, above grade level reading group, and good grades get rejected, while another child with 90th percentile CogATs (or even lower. I know several of these) get in? Just what are the committee members seeing in that super brief glance at the work samples or in the parent referrals that is tipping the balance in favor of admissions for kids with really meh test scores? FWIW, the aart said that every year, the school committee members feel shocked by some of the kids who aren't admitted, because the files were really strong, and they're shocked by some of the ones who are admitted with very weak files.

I agree that the appeals process fixes things for the kids who otherwise fell through the cracks on the first pass. I'm annoyed that people on dcum as well as somewhat in real life are snotty about appeals, as if the kids who get in via appeal are somehow lesser than their kids.

I would think the teacher's assessment would count heavily.

The ones with good scores didn't make it the first round - typically also with low GBRS scores.

Yes, and the GBRS score is, by definition, subjective.

Makes sense to have a heavily weighed data point be subjective. The other two heavily weighted ones (test results) are not. Remember the gbrs is set by a committee, not one person.