Just found the GBRS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just found out the GBRS, 12. NNAT is 126, FxAT is 92 (parent referral) with Verbal 99 and other two in the mid-to-high 70's. Thoughts?

With all due respect, you have a very bright kid, who's likely a good reader. Unless there's something special you're not mentioning here, I don't get why he or she should qualify for AAP. Mid to high 70s, and one of these, presumably is in math, aren't center scores, and I suspect your child might not be able to keep up with many of the others. I think you'd find loads of children still in the base schools with similar or higher scores. Sorry to be so blunt, but in FCPS this seems above average.

Well, the overall was 92nd percentile and 15% of the kids end up in AAP so I find it hard to believe that there will be "loads" of kids with similar or higher scores.

You would be surprised. One of the reasons they changed to the FxAT was because the county has a higher proportion of smart kids. And since there are so many, the suggested cutoff is 95% FxAT and 132 for NNAT. Sure some kids don't do well on standardized test or group tests, but what I have seen as that's precisely the problem.

Why should 15% of FCPS kids need to go to another school when there are plenty of other smart kids in their own base school? And yes, many with higher scores... I know this both from what teachers have told me and what I have seen this with my kids (who are in both GT and Gen. Ed). Why should one kid be in an AAP center because his parents pushed and perhaps even paid to have him tested again and a similarly bright child kept at his base school? But then if you put all these kids in the center you have a much higher percentage than 15.

I think parents on the whole have gotten a little too nutty about the whole AAP program when basically most of their kids could get an excellent education at any FCPS school.

Level III at the base school is intended to provide challenge in one or maybe two areas of strength. Level IV at the Center is intended to provide challenge in all four areas of strength.

The issue seems to be lack of consistency of Level III at the base school.

[Anonymous]

PP here, I guess my confusion is that with a 92nd percentile there are only 8% or so of the kids who scored higher. If AAP takes 15% or so I just can't see how there would be many kids at that level left behind unless they're taking a LOT of kids with significantly lower scores.

[Anonymous]

I think the 99th% of verbal score with a 12 of GBRS should be enough for the kid to be admitted to AAP.

[Anonymous]

Is a gbrs of 12 a good score for in-pool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just found out the GBRS, 12. NNAT is 126, FxAT is 92 (parent referral) with Verbal 99 and other two in the mid-to-high 70's. Thoughts?

I am the parent whose child has the above scores. Thank you everyone for your thoughts. From what I'm hearing, in years past (when about 15% of the kids in Fairfax were being moved to AAP) my child would have had a good chance. But perhaps not this year, because it looks like Fairfax is trying to limit the number of children by limiting the pool to the top 95% of the county kids. Is that about right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is a gbrs of 12 a good score for in-pool?

It is average

[Anonymous]

What? The other threads are saying 9 is average, 12 is good. Source please? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Our base school has a center, I am not sure that they offer level 3, at least not from what I can tell. None of the non center kids are pushed into aap. Aap is aap, only, at our school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our base school has a center, I am not sure that they offer level 3, at least not from what I can tell. None of the non center kids are pushed into aap. Aap is aap, only, at our school.

This is the real problem, the inconsistency within the program. Our base school is also a center, and they offer differentiated reading and compacted math (which works one year ahead) as level III. The very advanced kids can work ahead more than one year ahead in math with the next grade aap classes, but this is rare. If we didn't have these services I would've taken more steps to try for level IV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What? The other threads are saying 9 is average, 12 is good. Source please? Thanks.

12 is average for kids in pool that are ultimately found Center eligible. Source is Carol Horn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our base school has a center, I am not sure that they offer level 3, at least not from what I can tell. None of the non center kids are pushed into aap. Aap is aap, only, at our school.

This is the real problem, the inconsistency within the program. Our base school is also a center, and they offer differentiated reading and compacted math (which works one year ahead) as level III. The very advanced kids can work ahead more than one year ahead in math with the next grade aap classes, but this is rare. If we didn't have these services I would've taken more steps to try for level IV.

ITA. There is inconsistency from school to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? The other threads are saying 9 is average, 12 is good. Source please? Thanks.

12 is average for kids in pool that are ultimately found Center eligible. Source is Carol Horn.

Is this published somewhere, or did you somehow get the word from the horse's mouth (no offense to Dr. Horn)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? The other threads are saying 9 is average, 12 is good. Source please? Thanks.

12 is average for kids in pool that are ultimately found Center eligible. Source is Carol Horn.

Is this published somewhere, or did you somehow get the word from the horse's mouth (no offense to Dr. Horn)?

She has stated it at AAPAC meetings. I believe she has also presented it before the School Board.

[Anonymous]

it was published a vew years ago in a report on aap. As were the averge scores. (Average scores are not has high as you would think, but the gbrs was)

[Anonymous]

I remember that report was being tossed around in a thread two years ago. You are correct. The average GBRS was 12 and the average CogAT was actually below the cutoff, as I recall, like 128 or something. That ended up matching the unofficial WISC "cut off" on appeal, which according to a long thread compiled that year, fell right around 126 for kids whose GBRS was around 12. It ended up looking like a sliding scale; a WISC score above 130 or so could overcome as GBRS as low as 8 or 9; a GBRS of 11 or above could overcome a WISC score as low as 126. But I don't recall anyone getting in that year (at least based on the informal results of the thread, which was about 20 appealers) with a WISC score lower than 126. Again, that was an appeal thread and no one knows how the committee is going to come down on the FxAT (whether 92 and above is good enough with a GBRS of 12).