cutoff scores for Fairfax County GT centers for this year?

[Anonymous]

My son got 135 on NNAt and 132 on cogat. I don't have a lot of support from his private school. do you think he has a chance?
What are the coutoffs scores for Fairfax conty this year?Thank you so much!

[Anonymous]

Here is a link with a lot of detailed statistics for GT Center placement during 2004-2005.

Gifted Center Identitification Report for the 2004-2005 Screening Cycle: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/Fairfax/Board.nsf/39c6389c088be51585256e56000c1bf2/2b1b2b585a5d305e852570fb004f3f9f/$FILE/Gifted%20and%20Talented%20Center%20Program.pdf

For the students who were selected from the pool for level IV placement in 2004-2005. The average scores were:

Cogat
Verbal: 119
NonVerbal: 126
Quant: 121
NNAT: 129

The report shows that the number of students ( 3 to 8 ) in the level IV program has been increasing each year since 2001. Using the report as a baseline I'd estimate that about 14% of the ( 3 to 8 ) student population will be in the level IV program next school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here is a link with a lot of detailed statistics for GT Center placement during 2004-2005.

Gifted Center Identitification Report for the 2004-2005 Screening Cycle: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/Fairfax/Board.nsf/39c6389c088be51585256e56000c1bf2/2b1b2b585a5d305e852570fb004f3f9f/$FILE/Gifted%20and%20Talented%20Center%20Program.pdf

For the students who were selected from the pool for level IV placement in 2004-2005. The average scores were:

Cogat
Verbal: 119
NonVerbal: 126
Quant: 121
NNAT: 129

The report shows that the number of students ( 3 to 8 ) in the level IV program has been increasing each year since 2001. Using the report as a baseline I'd estimate that about 14% of the ( 3 to 8 ) student population will be in the level IV program next school year.

Wow, I'm really surprised. Those scores are shockingly low. And with the benchmark score for the screening pool having been lowered to 130 this year, this year's pool might have an even lower average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, I'm really surprised. Those scores are shockingly low. And with the benchmark score for the screening pool having been lowered to 130 this year, this year's pool might have an even lower average.

They are expanding the pool because they had fewer students in the pool last year. That doesn't mean they are finding more students eligible for GT center placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, I'm really surprised. Those scores are shockingly low. And with the benchmark score for the screening pool having been lowered to 130 this year, this year's pool might have an even lower average.

They are expanding the pool because they had fewer students in the pool last year. That doesn't mean they are finding more students eligible for GT center placement.

That may be true, but expanding the pool of students by lowering the benchmark score certainly leads to the possibility that the average scores for those admitted to GT will be lower.

[Anonymous]

The averages are low but that makes sense because not every child is a high scorer in every area. It should bring comfort to those that have children with uneven scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, I'm really surprised. Those scores are shockingly low. And with the benchmark score for the screening pool having been lowered to 130 this year, this year's pool might have an even lower average.

They are expanding the pool because they had fewer students in the pool last year. That doesn't mean they are finding more students eligible for GT center placement.

That may be true, but expanding the pool of students by lowering the benchmark score certainly leads to the possibility that the average scores for those admitted to GT will be lower.

I think it would be more helpful to have median scores vs. average scores over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The averages are low but that makes sense because not every child is a high scorer in every area. It should bring comfort to those that have children with uneven scores.

I think the whole GT slelection is the wate time and public resources. It started only 8% of students are eligible, now > 14% and the cutoff is lowered every year. Why not make all the county students to be GT eligible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The averages are low but that makes sense because not every child is a high scorer in every area. It should bring comfort to those that have children with uneven scores.

I think the whole GT slelection is the wate time and public resources. It started only 8% of students are eligible, now > 14% and the cutoff is lowered every year. Why not make all the county students to be GT eligible?

I agree that the selection process has its flaws, as any selection process would, but I think it's more of a waste to not provide the type of education that GT students need. Standard classroom instruction doesn't cut it for many of these kids. Similarly, a GT curriculum is inappropriate for most non-GT kids. This is basically special ed, but on the other end of the spectrum.

And, in a sense, all county students are eligible. You can make it into the screening pool by testing in (e.g., CogAT and NNAT tests are administered to all 2nd graders) or through a parent referral, which any student can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not make all the county students to be GT eligible?

All county students do receive GT services -- it's called Level I.

http://www.fcps.edu/DIS/gt/level1.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not make all the county students to be GT eligible?

All county students do receive GT services -- it's called Level I.

http://www.fcps.edu/DIS/gt/level1.html

C'mon. I think you know what the PP meant. This isn't Lake Wobegon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not make all the county students to be GT eligible?

All county students do receive GT services -- it's called Level I.

http://www.fcps.edu/DIS/gt/level1.html

C'mon. I think you know what the PP meant. This isn't Lake Wobegon.

Since we are getting rid of GT services, I think we should just get rid of public education altogether. That'll solve the problem. You want your kid in band and strings? Join a private band or orchestra. You want foreign language instruction? Go sign up for Rosetta Stone. Take all the Fairfax County tax payments and return the portion for public education to the Fairfax County taxpayers, and Richmond can just deal with it. Good luck to the southwest Virginia public schools!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not make all the county students to be GT eligible?

All county students do receive GT services -- it's called Level I.

http://www.fcps.edu/DIS/gt/level1.html

C'mon. I think you know what the PP meant. This isn't Lake Wobegon.

Since we are getting rid of GT services, I think we should just get rid of public education altogether. That'll solve the problem. You want your kid in band and strings? Join a private band or orchestra. You want foreign language instruction? Go sign up for Rosetta Stone. Take all the Fairfax County tax payments and return the portion for public education to the Fairfax County taxpayers, and Richmond can just deal with it. Good luck to the southwest Virginia public schools!

12:07 here. What are you taking about? Budget constraints aside, nobody said anything about getting rid of GT services. It's clear that 10:25 was talking about what has traditionally been considered to be "Gifted and Talented" education -- the GT Center (and now Local Level IV) instruction. 11:54 referred to Level I services, which is indeed offered to everybody. Describing Level I services as "Gifted and Talented" strains credulity. It's like how the smallest drink at Starbucks is a "tall." Hence, my "Lake Wobegon" reference, which was apparently lost on you. It's where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

12:07 here. What are you taking about? Budget constraints aside, nobody said anything about getting rid of GT services. It's clear that 10:25 was talking about what has traditionally been considered to be "Gifted and Talented" education -- the GT Center (and now Local Level IV) instruction. 11:54 referred to Level I services, which is indeed offered to everybody. Describing Level I services as "Gifted and Talented" strains credulity. It's like how the smallest drink at Starbucks is a "tall." Hence, my "Lake Wobegon" reference, which was apparently lost on you. It's where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon

What is apparently lost on you is that Level I services, provided to all students in elementary schools, is run by the Advanced Academics division in Instructional Services in FCPS. These Level I services are provided to students by Advanced Academic Resource Teachers. If these Level I services are provided to all students, and not just to those that are identified as gifted, why are the services included in the GT budget? Shouldn't these services be provided by classroom teachers, and then the GT budget could be reduced in turn, including by reducing the number of Advanced Academic Resource Teachers county-wide?

If something is not gifted education, it should not be labeled as such, and should not come from the Instructional Services' Advanced Academics budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

12:07 here. What are you taking about? Budget constraints aside, nobody said anything about getting rid of GT services. It's clear that 10:25 was talking about what has traditionally been considered to be "Gifted and Talented" education -- the GT Center (and now Local Level IV) instruction. 11:54 referred to Level I services, which is indeed offered to everybody. Describing Level I services as "Gifted and Talented" strains credulity. It's like how the smallest drink at Starbucks is a "tall." Hence, my "Lake Wobegon" reference, which was apparently lost on you. It's where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon

What is apparently lost on you is that Level I services, provided to all students in elementary schools, is run by the Advanced Academics division in Instructional Services in FCPS. These Level I services are provided to students by Advanced Academic Resource Teachers. If these Level I services are provided to all students, and not just to those that are identified as gifted, why are the services included in the GT budget? Shouldn't these services be provided by classroom teachers, and then the GT budget could be reduced in turn, including by reducing the number of Advanced Academic Resource Teachers county-wide?

If something is not gifted education, it should not be labeled as such, and should not come from the Instructional Services' Advanced Academics budget.

You're making my point. I don't believe that "Level I" should be labeled as gifted education if everybody is getting it. Whether Level I services are included in the GT budget or not is immaterial to me.

In any event, this has strayed quite a bit from 10:25's comment that the GT selection process was a waste of time and resources. You're saying that everybody is GT because everybody receives at least Level I. I'm saying that I don't think 10:25 meant that.