I'm looking for information on the benefits of certain testing combinations, Cogat + Iowa in this case, and why they might be trusted for gifted identification within school districts.
For many years, our district used the combo of MAP and Olsat to qualify students for its gifted accelerated program (9th stanine on all required). A couple years ago, the system was overhauled. The district now gives the following tests to every third grader: CogAT, Iowa reading, Iowa math, Iowa social studies, and Iowa science. The Iowa tests are used to identify GT students in each subject area for enrichment at their home schools, but the gifted accelerated program is only for those who score in the 9th stanine on CogAT, Iowa math, and Iowa reading. There are sometimes more qualifiers than available spots, so students are rank ordered and offered spots in that order--which means some qualifiers are left out.
My questions to anyone who is very familiar with these tests:
1) What might be the reasons the district chose to use Iowa as a better indicator of readiness for acceleration (or GT services per subject) than MAP? Assuming they are giving grade level Iowa tests, it seems on the surface that MAP would be a better indicator. Then again, I am familiar with MAP, and not at all familiar with Iowa.
2) What are possible reasons for the switch from Olsat to Cogat? Is one considered more reliable than the other?
3) Is this combination of Cogat + Iowa widely used and known to be a good indicator of which students might be more successful in an accelerated program?
Our district changed their entire identification process but did not publicize any reasons for the switch. I now have a 3rd grader who has qualified for the accelerated program, and he would have under the old system as well (his MAPs are always 9th stanine in both reading and math). But I know of other students who have YEARS of 9th stanine MAP history, and have demonstrated class performance above grade level, but were not offered a spot in the accelerated program because an Iowa math or reading score was not high enough. Seeing these children fall through the cracks when I feel they should have been offered an opportunity makes me wonder why the district might think this new combination of testing is better. In addition, my older child was tested last year as a 5th grader, and his Iowa reading result was a full 20 percentile points LOWER than his MAP results have been for many years. He is always 96th-99th on reading MAP, which has held true from kindergarten through 5th grade, but was 79th on Iowa reading. All of this makes me look at Iowa in a suspicious light. Any insight is appreciated.
