Key issues existed each phase and in each criteria in the process. 

​

1. Access to the process was limited by arbitrary CogAT thresholds in Phase 1.  Students with 97th percentile CogAT scores were invited into the process  AFTER parent complaints and after secure exam results of the initial group were determined.
    

2. Inputs were inaccurate measures of student performance
   
   ​​The secure exam measurement value was blurred by an arbitrary revaluation. Students with scores as low as 60% and as high as 79% are revalued to a '3' in the rubric. A student with a failing grade was considered the same as one with a 79%.  Students with test scores that are 20 points apart do not deserve the same rubric score.  Click here for more information on secure exam score revaluation.
   
   The secure exam criteria should reflect a universal standard of prerequisite content knowledge required for all students.  For those invited to Phase 2, the district applied a rubric where by teacher ratings determined the required secure exam score for admission. Students who get a teacher rating of '4' only needed a 50% on the exam to be admitted.  Students with a teacher rating of '2' or '3' needed a 60% to be admitted. Students who get a teacher rating or '1' needed an 80% to be admitted.​\
   
   The secure exam was given on two separate dates (June 12 and June 21) to different CogAT cohorts.  The exam was not changed.  Students in the second cohort (the 97th percentile CogAT who weren't even allowed in the process based on policy) had information on what was on the exam from the earlier group. 
    

3. Teacher input as utilized in this process was an inaccurate measure of student behavior. Click here for more information. ​
    

4. Work Sample: The work sample was inequitable and unclearly conveyed.  All students got the same score of '4'.  It was a deliberately useless metric. Click here for more information.
    

Click here to learn about the placement rubric applied in 2023.