WISC question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP. She did the WISC at GMU. I did not mention the score in my parent essay. I assumed that because it was in the packet it would be looked at but that probably wasn't smart. Hopefully it won't matter! Looking at the volume of what is submitted, I have a hard time believing they are going through each packet with a fine toothed comb.

There is a lot of info in the packet, that’s why the whole point of the parent letter is to tell the story you want the committee to see from the info you’re providing. It should explain, with support, why you think your child needs full-time level IV. Don’t throw test scores in there and expect the committee to know why they’re there. Why did you have a WISC done prior to an appeal anyway? That’s not typical.

It's easy to say this like every parent is going to be an expert on this process the first time, which of course isn't true. You have hindsight bias. As another parent who dealt with crucial info being downplayed/omitted by the AART/teacher, I now understand the importance of the parent statement.

The parent might have been trying to add more datapoints by getting a WISC--nothing wrong with that, whether typical or not. But in a way, it might be good if the score is not noted because then the parent can perhaps refer to it in an appeal (as 'new' info).

Yes, exactly, I’m saying this on this thread so more parents will know in the future and not waste an opportunity to successfully advocate for their kid. Also, the wisc as an additional datapoint in the initial application, w/o context, is not looked upon favorably by the committee.

If OP needs to appeal, the WISC can’t be used as new info, but new work samples can be included instead. Unless they’ve done away w that now.

And just to clarify, I’m not criticizing you, OP, just trying to offer tips for other parents on future packets. I’m sure your info got to the committee fine. If you do find you have to appeal, plenty of us seasoned parents on here are happy to offer strategic advice for your appeals packet.

[Anonymous]

OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

It does not sound like this oversight would lead to a rejection, as it's likely they'll still see your WISC and you've made it clear all the scores are good. The only concern would be that the HOPE is bad, but doesn't sound like you are worried about that.

The earlier poster said adding the WISC without context doesn't look good, but I don't see how they can possibly know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

It does not sound like this oversight would lead to a rejection, as it's likely they'll still see your WISC and you've made it clear all the scores are good. The only concern would be that the HOPE is bad, but doesn't sound like you are worried about that.

The earlier poster said adding the WISC without context doesn't look good, but I don't see how they can possibly know that.

Thanks for this. Her scores are good but they are not as high as some I see on her so I feel like I don't have a great idea of what is actually "good enough" for AAP. She was not in-pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

It does not sound like this oversight would lead to a rejection, as it's likely they'll still see your WISC and you've made it clear all the scores are good. The only concern would be that the HOPE is bad, but doesn't sound like you are worried about that.

The earlier poster said adding the WISC without context doesn't look good, but I don't see how they can possibly know that.

Thanks for this. Her scores are good but they are not as high as some I see on her so I feel like I don't have a great idea of what is actually "good enough" for AAP. She was not in-pool.

“Good enough” really depends on your school now that they’ve moved to local norms, and scores are only one part of the holistic picture. Scores should be supported by HOPE rating and work samples.

To the PP - I’m the poster who said WISC w/o context in the initial packet doesn’t usually look good. it’s been years since I’ve read the AAP equity report but you can find tons of threads w this info. The 2020 AAP equity report recommended doing away with WISC and the committee doesn’t care for it from an equity standpoint. It does, however, makes sense to use in an appeal as new data, especially if you’re arguing there were testing issues, illness, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

It does not sound like this oversight would lead to a rejection, as it's likely they'll still see your WISC and you've made it clear all the scores are good. The only concern would be that the HOPE is bad, but doesn't sound like you are worried about that.

The earlier poster said adding the WISC without context doesn't look good, but I don't see how they can possibly know that.

Thanks for this. Her scores are good but they are not as high as some I see on her so I feel like I don't have a great idea of what is actually "good enough" for AAP. She was not in-pool.

“Good enough” really depends on your school now that they’ve moved to local norms, and scores are only one part of the holistic picture. Scores should be supported by HOPE rating and work samples.

To the PP - I’m the poster who said WISC w/o context in the initial packet doesn’t usually look good. it’s been years since I’ve read the AAP equity report but you can find tons of threads w this info. The 2020 AAP equity report recommended doing away with WISC and the committee doesn’t care for it from an equity standpoint. It does, however, makes sense to use in an appeal as new data, especially if you’re arguing there were testing issues, illness, etc.

But isn't it also inequitable to discount a kid because they have this test result in their file? I would think it's at worst neutral or disregarded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

It does not sound like this oversight would lead to a rejection, as it's likely they'll still see your WISC and you've made it clear all the scores are good. The only concern would be that the HOPE is bad, but doesn't sound like you are worried about that.

The earlier poster said adding the WISC without context doesn't look good, but I don't see how they can possibly know that.

Thanks for this. Her scores are good but they are not as high as some I see on her so I feel like I don't have a great idea of what is actually "good enough" for AAP. She was not in-pool.

As much as people hate it, acceptance is more than test scores. DS had a 135 composite score and 145 in Q. His NNAT was a 135 as well. He had all 4's and strong GBRS's. I know that people on this forum think a 135 is on the low end for acceptance but the committee is looking for more than just those scores. They are trying to use the GBRSs and noe the HOPE scores to find kids who are academically strong but also curious and motivated to learn. I know people whose kids had strong test scores and didn't get in. Some of them the kids are not curious, given the choice of doing extra work or not, the kid always chooses to do less. Could the kids do the work in AAP? Yes. Did the kid want to do the work? No. I know kids who had higher test scores who didn't get in and I hav no idea why. The kids are smart as heck, curious, and I think would have been a great fit.

I suspect that the real answer is that about 1/3 of the kids in ES could legitimately handle AAP but FCPS does not want to let the program get that big because they fear that it will mean that they are tracking kids. And honestly, they would be. And the optics would be horrific and right now most school districts are about the optics and preventing lawsuits. Changes in AAP selection started a while back because of complaints from minority groups over representation in the program. Complaints and the threat of a lawsuit caused the changes in TJ admission. The last thing that FCPS wants, or any other county, is to have a program where the vast majority of the kids in it are White and Asian, and that is exactly what AAP would look like if they simply set a set scale and used that for placement.

The answer is to have Advanced Classes for each one of the core subjects and rotate kids in and out of that class(es). You can have the kids who are in all 3-4 Advanced class in the same homeroom(s) and rotate in the kids who need Advanced Math or Advanced LA into the room as needed. If they had this set up, I think my kid is in for Advanced Math and Science but maybe not LA and Social Studies. He does well in all 4 core subjects but LA and History are not his strong suits.

The other answer is to use the base LIV curriculum in all classes, allowing Teachers to use extensions in the reading or math groups for the kids who need more while focusing on the basics for the kids who need that.

But again, no one wants the optic that comes tracking or similar programs. And no one wants the lawsuits. And no one, to include the NAACP, has the slightest clue how to motivate parents who are high school dropouts to care about their kids schooling and until the parent's care, the kids are not going to care, and the cycle of generational poverty with its known academic gap will continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

It does not sound like this oversight would lead to a rejection, as it's likely they'll still see your WISC and you've made it clear all the scores are good. The only concern would be that the HOPE is bad, but doesn't sound like you are worried about that.

The earlier poster said adding the WISC without context doesn't look good, but I don't see how they can possibly know that.

Thanks for this. Her scores are good but they are not as high as some I see on her so I feel like I don't have a great idea of what is actually "good enough" for AAP. She was not in-pool.

“Good enough” really depends on your school now that they’ve moved to local norms, and scores are only one part of the holistic picture. Scores should be supported by HOPE rating and work samples.

To the PP - I’m the poster who said WISC w/o context in the initial packet doesn’t usually look good. it’s been years since I’ve read the AAP equity report but you can find tons of threads w this info. The 2020 AAP equity report recommended doing away with WISC and the committee doesn’t care for it from an equity standpoint. It does, however, makes sense to use in an appeal as new data, especially if you’re arguing there were testing issues, illness, etc.

But isn't it also inequitable to discount a kid because they have this test result in their file? I would think it's at worst neutral or disregarded.

I have no interest in debating FCPS positions on equity. I don’t personally think including a WISC will hurt OPs kid but many threads on here say otherwise. If it were my kid, I would’ve saved it for an appeal, mostly bc it’s new info and with the packet in hand, I could counter any weaknesses in the initial packet w/ those scores and work samples, but OP can still do that if she needs to appeal. Probably, like this entire subjective process, it depends on who is reviewing the file.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

It does not sound like this oversight would lead to a rejection, as it's likely they'll still see your WISC and you've made it clear all the scores are good. The only concern would be that the HOPE is bad, but doesn't sound like you are worried about that.

The earlier poster said adding the WISC without context doesn't look good, but I don't see how they can possibly know that.

Thanks for this. Her scores are good but they are not as high as some I see on her so I feel like I don't have a great idea of what is actually "good enough" for AAP. She was not in-pool.

“Good enough” really depends on your school now that they’ve moved to local norms, and scores are only one part of the holistic picture. Scores should be supported by HOPE rating and work samples.

To the PP - I’m the poster who said WISC w/o context in the initial packet doesn’t usually look good. it’s been years since I’ve read the AAP equity report but you can find tons of threads w this info. The 2020 AAP equity report recommended doing away with WISC and the committee doesn’t care for it from an equity standpoint. It does, however, makes sense to use in an appeal as new data, especially if you’re arguing there were testing issues, illness, etc.

But isn't it also inequitable to discount a kid because they have this test result in their file? I would think it's at worst neutral or disregarded.

I have no interest in debating FCPS positions on equity. I don’t personally think including a WISC will hurt OPs kid but many threads on here say otherwise. If it were my kid, I would’ve saved it for an appeal, mostly bc it’s new info and with the packet in hand, I could counter any weaknesses in the initial packet w/ those scores and work samples, but OP can still do that if she needs to appeal. Probably, like this entire subjective process, it depends on who is reviewing the file.

I'm the PP who also submitted a WISC in the initial packet. My child is in 3rd grade and I have a WISC from our unsuccessful appeal attempt last year. I talked to the AART about whether to include the WISC, and she said it wouldn't hurt to include it. I hope she was correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

It does not sound like this oversight would lead to a rejection, as it's likely they'll still see your WISC and you've made it clear all the scores are good. The only concern would be that the HOPE is bad, but doesn't sound like you are worried about that.

The earlier poster said adding the WISC without context doesn't look good, but I don't see how they can possibly know that.

Thanks for this. Her scores are good but they are not as high as some I see on her so I feel like I don't have a great idea of what is actually "good enough" for AAP. She was not in-pool.

“Good enough” really depends on your school now that they’ve moved to local norms, and scores are only one part of the holistic picture. Scores should be supported by HOPE rating and work samples.

To the PP - I’m the poster who said WISC w/o context in the initial packet doesn’t usually look good. it’s been years since I’ve read the AAP equity report but you can find tons of threads w this info. The 2020 AAP equity report recommended doing away with WISC and the committee doesn’t care for it from an equity standpoint. It does, however, makes sense to use in an appeal as new data, especially if you’re arguing there were testing issues, illness, etc.

But isn't it also inequitable to discount a kid because they have this test result in their file? I would think it's at worst neutral or disregarded.

I have no interest in debating FCPS positions on equity. I don’t personally think including a WISC will hurt OPs kid but many threads on here say otherwise. If it were my kid, I would’ve saved it for an appeal, mostly bc it’s new info and with the packet in hand, I could counter any weaknesses in the initial packet w/ those scores and work samples, but OP can still do that if she needs to appeal. Probably, like this entire subjective process, it depends on who is reviewing the file.

+1. We are all grasping in the dark. We don't know how they make their decisions and they are likely not uniform. A previous poster claims they are trying to find kids who are curious etc, not just rule-following good test takers. We don't know that that is true. And there's reason to think it may not be. There's a correlation between the introduction of these more subjective, wishy-washy assessments and what has happened more broadly in education (even higher ed, which has become less reliant on objective test scores as well). They want more leeway. And who can blame them when the TJ-obsessed send their kids to CogAT classes and people cheat on the WISC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

It does not sound like this oversight would lead to a rejection, as it's likely they'll still see your WISC and you've made it clear all the scores are good. The only concern would be that the HOPE is bad, but doesn't sound like you are worried about that.

The earlier poster said adding the WISC without context doesn't look good, but I don't see how they can possibly know that.

Thanks for this. Her scores are good but they are not as high as some I see on her so I feel like I don't have a great idea of what is actually "good enough" for AAP. She was not in-pool.

As much as people hate it, acceptance is more than test scores. DS had a 135 composite score and 145 in Q. His NNAT was a 135 as well. He had all 4's and strong GBRS's. I know that people on this forum think a 135 is on the low end for acceptance but the committee is looking for more than just those scores. They are trying to use the GBRSs and noe the HOPE scores to find kids who are academically strong but also curious and motivated to learn. I know people whose kids had strong test scores and didn't get in. Some of them the kids are not curious, given the choice of doing extra work or not, the kid always chooses to do less. Could the kids do the work in AAP? Yes. Did the kid want to do the work? No. I know kids who had higher test scores who didn't get in and I hav no idea why. The kids are smart as heck, curious, and I think would have been a great fit.

I suspect that the real answer is that about 1/3 of the kids in ES could legitimately handle AAP but FCPS does not want to let the program get that big because they fear that it will mean that they are tracking kids. And honestly, they would be. And the optics would be horrific and right now most school districts are about the optics and preventing lawsuits. Changes in AAP selection started a while back because of complaints from minority groups over representation in the program. Complaints and the threat of a lawsuit caused the changes in TJ admission. The last thing that FCPS wants, or any other county, is to have a program where the vast majority of the kids in it are White and Asian, and that is exactly what AAP would look like if they simply set a set scale and used that for placement.

The answer is to have Advanced Classes for each one of the core subjects and rotate kids in and out of that class(es). You can have the kids who are in all 3-4 Advanced class in the same homeroom(s) and rotate in the kids who need Advanced Math or Advanced LA into the room as needed. If they had this set up, I think my kid is in for Advanced Math and Science but maybe not LA and Social Studies. He does well in all 4 core subjects but LA and History are not his strong suits.

The other answer is to use the base LIV curriculum in all classes, allowing Teachers to use extensions in the reading or math groups for the kids who need more while focusing on the basics for the kids who need that.

But again, no one wants the optic that comes tracking or similar programs. And no one wants the lawsuits. And no one, to include the NAACP, has the slightest clue how to motivate parents who are high school dropouts to care about their kids schooling and until the parent's care, the kids are not going to care, and the cycle of generational poverty with its known academic gap will continue.

Not sure why 20-30 percent of the kids should suffer because some parents can't be bothered to support their kids. If the test scores can be shown to predict success in the program, it should be defensible in a lawsuit. Instead we have a black box that is opaque to everyone and requires a lot of additional resources to administer to attempt to meet some invisible quotas. We did a different school board with common sense, and the courage to do what's right for the most kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, thanks for the info. In hindsight, I should have highlighted it but I was concerned about getting other things in there and wasn't really thinking about the fact that the committee is looking at a huge stack of paper. It makes total sense though.

I did not mention the technology issues because the scores ended up being fine and very consistent with the WISC (within 1 point).

Hopefully I don't have to appeal, but if I do I will mention it. You can also include new work samples still.

It does not sound like this oversight would lead to a rejection, as it's likely they'll still see your WISC and you've made it clear all the scores are good. The only concern would be that the HOPE is bad, but doesn't sound like you are worried about that.

The earlier poster said adding the WISC without context doesn't look good, but I don't see how they can possibly know that.

Thanks for this. Her scores are good but they are not as high as some I see on her so I feel like I don't have a great idea of what is actually "good enough" for AAP. She was not in-pool.

As much as people hate it, acceptance is more than test scores. DS had a 135 composite score and 145 in Q. His NNAT was a 135 as well. He had all 4's and strong GBRS's. I know that people on this forum think a 135 is on the low end for acceptance but the committee is looking for more than just those scores. They are trying to use the GBRSs and noe the HOPE scores to find kids who are academically strong but also curious and motivated to learn. I know people whose kids had strong test scores and didn't get in. Some of them the kids are not curious, given the choice of doing extra work or not, the kid always chooses to do less. Could the kids do the work in AAP? Yes. Did the kid want to do the work? No. I know kids who had higher test scores who didn't get in and I hav no idea why. The kids are smart as heck, curious, and I think would have been a great fit.

I suspect that the real answer is that about 1/3 of the kids in ES could legitimately handle AAP but FCPS does not want to let the program get that big because they fear that it will mean that they are tracking kids. And honestly, they would be. And the optics would be horrific and right now most school districts are about the optics and preventing lawsuits. Changes in AAP selection started a while back because of complaints from minority groups over representation in the program. Complaints and the threat of a lawsuit caused the changes in TJ admission. The last thing that FCPS wants, or any other county, is to have a program where the vast majority of the kids in it are White and Asian, and that is exactly what AAP would look like if they simply set a set scale and used that for placement.

The answer is to have Advanced Classes for each one of the core subjects and rotate kids in and out of that class(es). You can have the kids who are in all 3-4 Advanced class in the same homeroom(s) and rotate in the kids who need Advanced Math or Advanced LA into the room as needed. If they had this set up, I think my kid is in for Advanced Math and Science but maybe not LA and Social Studies. He does well in all 4 core subjects but LA and History are not his strong suits.

The other answer is to use the base LIV curriculum in all classes, allowing Teachers to use extensions in the reading or math groups for the kids who need more while focusing on the basics for the kids who need that.

But again, no one wants the optic that comes tracking or similar programs. And no one wants the lawsuits. And no one, to include the NAACP, has the slightest clue how to motivate parents who are high school dropouts to care about their kids schooling and until the parent's care, the kids are not going to care, and the cycle of generational poverty with its known academic gap will continue.

Not sure why 20-30 percent of the kids should suffer because some parents can't be bothered to support their kids. If the test scores can be shown to predict success in the program, it should be defensible in a lawsuit. Instead we have a black box that is opaque to everyone and requires a lot of additional resources to administer to attempt to meet some invisible quotas. We did a different school board with common sense, and the courage to do what's right for the most kids.

I would tend to agree with you except for the thorny issue of test prep.

[Anonymous]

OP here, DD ended up getting in.