GT/AAP Appeals
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Any suggestions from those with experience?? (other than WISC scores, which are a given, I think) |
Anonymous
| Don't know anything other than WISC scores, but you could ask what they're looking for to increase your chances of getting in. A neighbor's daughter got in on appeal with WISC scores alone to FCPS GT. |
Anonymous
| What I would do to appeal is get as much *new* information...WISC, and possibly a professional evaluation (psych, etc). Basically, collect as much information that is new, and in your favor. |
Anonymous
|
My DC scored 139 in NNAT and 150 in COGAT(non verbal), GBRS = 10, found ineligible. We just got his WISC testing done and here are the scores -
VCI - 121 - 92 % (superior) Perceptual - 135 - 99 (Very superior) working memory - 123 - 94% (superior) processing speed - 118 - 88% (high average) Full scale - 132 - 98% (Very superior) Are these scores good? Are my chances good? any other info I can submit? |
Anonymous
|
Our AART (once she finally agreed to meet with me) suggested having the child do a writing sample with a hand drawn picture.
She seemed to think the WISC scores needed to be 10 points higher than NNAT and CogAt -- but I really don't think she knows what she's talking about. She thought CogAt went up to 160. Interesting. My DC had similar scores (although NNAT was lower) and also got rejected. DC's GBRS was 11.  Your DC's WISC scores are higher than my DC's are 129 -=97th percentile), but we're appealing anyway -- although I don't hold out much hope.
I can't help but feel that the kids that are strong in the spatial skills get screwed on the GBRS, where as the kids that "seem" brighter because there strengths fall in areas that are more obvious for reading, etc. seem to get in. |
Anonymous
Random sample of parents I know (non-scientific) was that you need 139+. One DD had 137 was denied on appeal and another had 139+--pretty equal kids/bakgrounds. Also, the one with the 139 submitted a picture of their "all-star" sports team and another of their trophies/medals: this needs to be new so they should be within the last 4-5 months. |
Anonymous
| Wow! It just seems so subjective. Look at the other thread. There are kids with scores WAY below 139 that got in on the first round on a parent referral because the teacher and AART wrote a good GBRS. So a kid with a perfect score on one of the tests and a 132 on the WISC wouldn't make it? Bizarre to me. That kid is objectively in the top 2% where as the referral kid is in the top because of the "subjective" opinion of the teacher and the AART. It seems like a process in which the schools can really play favorites. |
Anonymous
No, the awards, etc. don't necessarily have to be "new" meaing they were received since the initial screening began - it just has to be "new" information in the sense that it was not already included in the file and reviewed by the committee. If you got someone to write a letter of recommendation for your child, based on that person's past experiences with your child, it could be, for instance, from the person who's been giving your child piano lessons for the past 3 years - and that would still be "new" information even though the person's recommendation isn't based solely on experience with your child from the past couple of months. New information just means information that the committee has not previously considered; it doesn't mean new developments with the child that have taken place since the initial round of screening. |
Anonymous
Well, the kid is "objectively" in the top 2% IN TERMS OF TEST SCORES. Test scores are not the only measure of giftedness, nor are they necessarily even an accurate measure for all children. The County considers criteria other than test scores to be relevant. Otherwise, there would be no screening process. They would just pick a cutoff score for the tests and everyone above it would be in. Kids who are referred and found eligible on the basis of other factors are in the Center just as legitimately and deservedly as kids with high test scores. |
Anonymous
For kids with scores lower than the cutoff, if the schools inflate their GBRS, they can get in. I think the county should just use the national NNAT/COGAT scores, eliminate the parent referal and school inflated GBRS in the process, that seems to be fair. BTW- my kid got in with GBRS-6, NNAT(146) and COGAT(140); even with bad school reports (some "N"s, very few "O"s)- the GT selection panel did not conisder school's ratings in our case at all. |
Anonymous
|
The thing is, it is possible to train kids for the NNAT/COGAT tests. I know someone that did it. It is possible that the committee is aware of that too. So when the test scores are out of whack with everything else, then it can become an issue. Also, some kids do not test well...up to there ability.
My DD gets very nervous on tests and I am sure that impacts her score. Also, she tends to rush through things and gets the correct answer for the wrong questions (She will think she knows what they are asking, think the problem through and answer a question other than what was asked; not necessarily easier, but different.) Her teachers can see that she knows what she is doing. However, this hurts her a lot in the standardized testing. She got in with NNAT of 118, COGAT of 116, GBRS of 14, strong referral (accurate but strong), and grades that are half O's and and half G's. I think the way the county does it is to try to find a reason to put the kid in Level 4 AAP. And they know that any part of the evaluation can be wrong/biased in any direction. So a kid with poor work samples, GBRS 16, and poor NNAT/COGATS is not getting in (I am assuming parental letters are discounted). However, as we have seen, excellent COGATs and NNAT's can get the child in. I suspect if one area is weak (like my DD's test scores), everything else must be strong. |
Anonymous
Ugh, I am SO sick of reading this! Basically, if your kid had great test scores, you think test scores are the only "objective" (and apparently infallible) measure of giftedness and should be the only criterion. If a child with not-as-great test scores gets it, it couldn't possibly be because that child is also bright enough to need to be in the Center. It has to be because the school "inflated" the GBRS, the schools are "hand-picking" some kids and even purposely sabotating some high test-scoring kids by giving low GBRS, the GBRS is "too subjective," and something corrupt has to be going on if any of these "dummies" who did not test into the screening pool are getting into the Center. Guess what. Some kids test VERY close to the cutoff but don't make the pool, but they still belong in the Center. My kid barely missed the cutoff, and he got in, and his GBRS was not "inflated." His GBRS reflected what his teacher and the AART think of him. His report card is perfect, and he is a superstar at school and is pulled out of his class 5 days/wk for advanced math & language arts with specialists. The teacher told me my DS is easily THE best math student the teacher has ever had in any 2nd grade class. We have no idea what happened with his test scores and why they weren't higher. My DD tested into the pool very easily 2 years ago and is thriving in the Center, and she has nowhere near the amazingly logical mathematical mind that my DS has. Sometimes very talented kids test only in the 97th percentile (which is outside the pool); mine is one of them. So you may think that test scores should be the one and only factor and that my child should be excluded (and believe me, you'd be singing a different tune if your extremely bright child missed the pool by ONE point; then things wouldn't seem so black & white to you). You're entitled to your opinion, but fortunately the County does not agree with you and uses multiple factors to evaluate these kids. |
Anonymous
|
I agree that there should be a means for kids to get into the GT program even if they don't have a certain score on the tests. Just like the previous poster's child. It appears her child belongs in a GT program and the way the county selects kids for the program allows children like hers to get in.
However, I don't think children with very high test scores like those posted earlier (139 and 150) should be EXCLUDED from the program because some teacher doesn't think the child has "gifted behaviors." The GBRS is subjective to some degree. And they are not consistent across teachers. What one teacher might think is "gifted" another might think is "normal." Does a child in a lower-income area appear "gifted" compared to one in an area of wealthy students? Is there even any type of training of teachers that allows the teachers across the county to mark children with some level of consistency on the GBRS? I just don't see how someone with 130s through 150 scores being excluded. |
Anonymous
|
It isn't black and white.
Schools may not necessarily be inflating scores for obviously bright children. I'm sure most of those children ARE bright AND excelling at school. However, schools do miss gifted children. So parents argue that the GBRS doesn't accurately reflect their child's abilities or potential. Just like some kids aren't good at test taking, some kids don't feel comfortable in their current school situation. It doesn't mean those children wouldn't thrive in a Center. In fact, a Center might be the very thing those children NEED to blossom in school. Test scores should help schools to identify gifted kids who weren't previously recognized as such, but those scores don't really seem to do much except get a child into the pool. Low GBRS appears to be enough to keep children out of services. On these boards, I've only seen one report where a child got in with high test scores, yet low GBRS. There are a plethora of those who got in with "low" test scores, but a high GBRS. Obviously, it is a tough job for the selection committee. There are many shades of gray. But there are cracks and gifted children are falling through. |
Anonymous
Agreed. |