Is Everyone's Child 90th percentile and above on the WPPSI III or just the DC's on this board?

[Anonymous]

We cannnot underestimate the child's adaptability in a playdate. It's complicated in weighing this factor because "the playdate" does not have a score which we parents are privy to as the WPPSI's do. Also, at the playdate the admissions teams and teachers are carefully noting where the children "really" are in real life in terms of intellectual and emotional development. The playdate can in a sense "raise" an above average (i.e. 86%) WPPSI score, if the child clearly demonstrates a higher aptitude and intellect than their WPPSI indicated.

True, but, it's also true that a child can have an off day during a playdate. Or that the tests that are administered during a playdate are not reflective of who a child really is most of the time. Just as a kid can have an off morning on the WPPSI, and her score is affected by external factors, the same can be true on playdate morning. And though the playdate is not scored as the WPPSI is, be assured that all is being recorded in pen and ink on a piece of paper with your kid's name on it.

ie, the woman with the clipboard is testing (that's what it is, I know they call it something else) to see if Child X can draw a figure with eyes, feet, hair and so forth. Child X can do it, but finds it boring that day or whatever and so draws a cursory stick person, which is duly noted on the clipboard. Same goes for name writing, block tower building, and all the myriad other things they look/test for during that playdate that inform their opinion of Child X's school readiness.

Now, the ants-in-the-pants thing you alluded to in your post is a different matter altogether, as it is not really a skill but a question of self-regulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We cannnot underestimate the child's adaptability in a playdate. It's complicated in weighing this factor because "the playdate" does not have a score which we parents are privy to as the WPPSI's do. Also, at the playdate the admissions teams and teachers are carefully noting where the children "really" are in real life in terms of intellectual and emotional development. The playdate can in a sense "raise" an above average (i.e. 86%) WPPSI score, if the child clearly demonstrates a higher aptitude and intellect than their WPPSI indicated.

True, but, it's also true that a child can have an off day during a playdate. Or that the tests that are administered during a playdate are not reflective of who a child really is most of the time. Just as a kid can have an off morning on the WPPSI, and her score is affected by external factors, the same can be true on playdate morning. And though the playdate is not scored as the WPPSI is, be assured that all is being recorded in pen and ink on a piece of paper with your kid's name on it.

ie, the woman with the clipboard is testing (that's what it is, I know they call it something else) to see if Child X can draw a figure with eyes, feet, hair and so forth. Child X can do it, but finds it boring that day or whatever and so draws a cursory stick person, which is duly noted on the clipboard. Same goes for name writing, block tower building, and all the myriad other things they look/test for during that playdate that inform their opinion of Child X's school readiness.

Now, the ants-in-the-pants thing you alluded to in your post is a different matter altogether, as it is not really a skill but a question of self-regulation.

My 2 cents:

Judging from what I see on this board, there is a larger-than-average proportion of kids with WPPSI scores in the upper 90% range who live in this area and are all applying to these same schools. These same kids probably all get glowing reports from their nursery schools. So there needs to be some way to break ties -- and I am sure we are not talking about ties between 2 kids, but literally 20-30 kids who all look equally amazing on paper.

From what I can gather, legacy kids take a fairly large proportion of the spots already. So you're looking at a handful of spots to be decided among many, many more brilliant, wonderful kids -- all of whom would be fantastic at any school. So the playdate must play a huge role as a tiebreaker.

As for a child with a WPPSI in the 80s beating out all those kids with WPPSIs in the 99%ile... just goes to show what the ADs think of the WPPSI -- maybe they realize that it's just as likely that a child has an "off day" when taking the test as they might during a playdate.

I know none of this is earth shattering, just wanted to share my thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We cannnot underestimate the child's adaptability in a playdate. It's complicated in weighing this factor because "the playdate" does not have a score which we parents are privy to as the WPPSI's do. Also, at the playdate the admissions teams and teachers are carefully noting where the children "really" are in real life in terms of intellectual and emotional development. The playdate can in a sense "raise" an above average (i.e. 86%) WPPSI score, if the child clearly demonstrates a higher aptitude and intellect than their WPPSI indicated.

True, but, it's also true that a child can have an off day during a playdate. Or that the tests that are administered during a playdate are not reflective of who a child really is most of the time. Just as a kid can have an off morning on the WPPSI, and her score is affected by external factors, the same can be true on playdate morning. And though the playdate is not scored as the WPPSI is, be assured that all is being recorded in pen and ink on a piece of paper with your kid's name on it.

ie, the woman with the clipboard is testing (that's what it is, I know they call it something else) to see if Child X can draw a figure with eyes, feet, hair and so forth. Child X can do it, but finds it boring that day or whatever and so draws a cursory stick person, which is duly noted on the clipboard. Same goes for name writing, block tower building, and all the myriad other things they look/test for during that playdate that inform their opinion of Child X's school readiness.

Now, the ants-in-the-pants thing you alluded to in your post is a different matter altogether, as it is not really a skill but a question of self-regulation.

I agree with your point about off days. Remember, a child can have an off day in the playdate just as a child can have an off day when taking the WPPSI. I might add, if the child's lack of compliance is truly due to an off day, this is where a pre-school director with a strong relationship with the school's AD can vouch for the aberration, thus foreseeably strengthen the child's candidacy. As for the ants-in-the-pants that is all a part of that wonderful term ADs refer to as "readiness."

[Anonymous]

The WPPSI is only a so-so predictor of how "smart" a child is. Research shows that IQ tests done before the age of around 8 may predict in a general way how a child will test several years later, but the prediction is only general. Add to that that the WPPSI, more than the WISC a few years later, is pretty heavily influenced by how much enrichment a child has received. A child who has been exposed to lots of rich language, books, puzzles, games, etc. will score higher than a child of similar potential who hasn't had those advantages.

What the ADs know is that a portion of those 99th %ers, a few years later, would earn lower scores, and that a portion of the 80th %ers, a few years later, would earn higher scores. It's less likely that a kid at the 50th %ile will jump to somewhere in the 90's, although it's possible, especially if learning issues are found and remediated.

[Anonymous]

I just want to emphasize what the PP said. I don't know what the ADs do, but anyone would be insane to treat the WPPSI--or any other similar "intelligence" test--as a big deal.

And I say this as someone who has benefited a great deal in my life from very high scores on multiple "aptitude" and "IQ" tests.

They're based on a flawed premise, that there's a general intelligence factor that can be measured, particularly through the aggregation of performance on sub-tests. At young ages, differences in the rate of cognitive development, among other things, skew the results.

[Anonymous]

OP, the high score parents get excited and have a way of writing a lot on DCUM. They need to brag.

[Anonymous]

Also, OP, my ds had WPPSI around 84%ile. He is a top reader at BV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were happy with Maria Zimitti in Georgetown. She had an easy rapport with my child, although her manner/dress were on the more formal side.

Would you recommend Dr. Zimmiti? I am thinking of using her for my DC. She seems very personable on the phone. Were you happy with the report she wrote. I don't know, but I have heard that this part is pretty important.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

I thought the report was fine, but DC was dinged at 4 out of 5 schools despite being your typical perfect child.

[Anonymous]

17:06 here. PP Thank you so much for the information. I really hope that you like the school your child will be attending!!

Not knowing any of the testers firsthand, choosing one is such a difficult decision. Do you think Dr. Zimitti would be a good tester for an active child, one who might need a little bit of help focusing? I would be grateful for any other insights you might have.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC was dinged at 4 out of 5 schools despite being your typical perfect child.

Yeah, the challenge is to be an interesting and unique child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I strongly suspect that the 3 independent schools to which we applied (and are now waitlisted) don't know what to do with a kid like this. The theory that super high scores may be a negative rings true with me. Confused in Fairfax County. Non diversity boy with no need for financial aid. No siblings. Stunned and amazed or perhaps just naive about this whole process. Any suggestions on what to do next?

More likely, you hit a year when these schools have lots of sibs/legacies/teachers' kids competing for the same slots. None of these schools are daunted by high scores and, as this thread suggests, at this age, the tests don't do a great job of distinguishing among bright and well-prepared preschoolers. High scores are typical of this applicant pool -- they're not extreme outliers.

Re what to do next. Depending on grade, re-apply, check out different schools, consider public (in Fairfax, they should be good). Not a whole lot is at stake here if you have a bright, eager-to-learn kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:06 here. PP Thank you so much for the information. I really hope that you like the school your child will be attending!!

Not knowing any of the testers firsthand, choosing one is such a difficult decision. Do you think Dr. Zimitti would be a good tester for an active child, one who might need a little bit of help focusing? I would be grateful for any other insights you might have.

Thanks.

Sorry, I couldn't say. DC is pretty focused. I did ask for suggestions for a tester for our second child--you might be able to find it if you search for "headstrong"--and I think Joel Adler was recommended more than once, but in the end we opted against testing this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the challenge is to be an interesting and unique child.

Sure, rub it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly suspect that the 3 independent schools to which we applied (and are now waitlisted) don't know what to do with a kid like this. The theory that super high scores may be a negative rings true with me. Confused in Fairfax County. Non diversity boy with no need for financial aid. No siblings. Stunned and amazed or perhaps just naive about this whole process. Any suggestions on what to do next?

More likely, you hit a year when these schools have lots of sibs/legacies/teachers' kids competing for the same slots. None of these schools are daunted by high scores and, as this thread suggests, at this age, the tests don't do a great job of distinguishing among bright and well-prepared preschoolers. High scores are typical of this applicant pool -- they're not extreme outliers.

Re what to do next. Depending on grade, re-apply, check out different schools, consider public (in Fairfax, they should be good). Not a whole lot is at stake here if you have a bright, eager-to-learn kid.

Great suggestions and good observations. This was a particularly difficult year for admissions. While not every child admitted into a private has 99+ scores, a lot of the successful applicants did have those scores. And Sidwell is pretty frank that a child with no other school connections needs high scores - and basically they mean "super" high.

Luck plays a huge role. I don't know how one plans for that.