Confused and frustrated by AAP selection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't use GMU! They did a terrible job with my child.

got a low score eh?

Actually, no. It was for my non-AAP child who has LDs and ADHD, but we didn't know it then. We knew something was off but couldn't afford a complete neuropsych eval. Decided to start with a WISC to see if there was underachievement. Later, we forked over for the complete neuropsych eval. The psych (in another state) told us to shred the GMU results because they were so off. We've had other testing since that shows the GMU results were just odd. Witt our AAP child, there were ADHD red flags they told us to not worry about.

So no. I'm not bitter about a low score.

We had a good experience with GMU. It's also odd that you would go to another state to do testing where GMU is very familiar with AAP and other Virginia standards. It also sounds like you couldn't afford a complete neuropsych so how can you get the complete picture? BTW GMU is one of the more affordable places to get the neuropsych eval and WISC, they also don't push you into expensive sometimes useless audio therapy or other things the for profit places do.

[Anonymous]

We retested and as soon as AART saw the higher scores he was moved to level III. Our child qualified for AAP but we did not send him. At our school, score was key (and I don't think they even considered SOLs).

[Anonymous]

It's interesting that FCPS doesn't generally consider SOLs because recent research has shown that performance on standardized tests like the SOLs are more indicative of successful student performance in a "gifted" program than IQ scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't use GMU! They did a terrible job with my child.

got a low score eh?

Actually, no. It was for my non-AAP child who has LDs and ADHD, but we didn't know it then. We knew something was off but couldn't afford a complete neuropsych eval. Decided to start with a WISC to see if there was underachievement. Later, we forked over for the complete neuropsych eval. The psych (in another state) told us to shred the GMU results because they were so off. We've had other testing since that shows the GMU results were just odd. Witt our AAP child, there were ADHD red flags they told us to not worry about.

So no. I'm not bitter about a low score.

We had a good experience with GMU. It's also odd that you would go to another state to do testing where GMU is very familiar with AAP and other Virginia standards. It also sounds like you couldn't afford a complete neuropsych so how can you get the complete picture? BTW GMU is one of the more affordable places to get the neuropsych eval and WISC, they also don't push you into expensive sometimes useless audio therapy or other things the for profit places do.

We moved to another state we didn't go out of state to get test scores to qualify for AAP as it sounds like you are implying. The GMU testing for our younger child was not actually for AAP purposes. We ended up shelling out for the complete neuropsych eval as it became clear that there were more specific issues (I.e. ADHD and dyslexia) as DC was not doing as well as the WISC (even the GMU one) would indicate.

I'm glad you got the score you were apparently looking for from GMU. I've had 2 experiences that later showed to be bad (both kids' tests had issues that had nothing to do with qualifying for AAP). In my opinion, GMU is not significantly cheaper and the quality is questionable in other than routine cases because the testers are practicing even though their results are reviewed. My understanding is that the actual process matters not just the scores and testers can make a big difference. YMMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that FCPS doesn't generally consider SOLs because recent research has shown that performance on standardized tests like the SOLs are more indicative of successful student performance in a "gifted" program than IQ scores.

Yes, but remember, that the gifted program was designed to meet the needs of gifted kids who learned differently, and aren't as often tied to straight arrow achievement as kids who would generally do the best on SOLs. I think you're misreading the research. To me it suggests that for all its pains FCPS still isn't meeting the needs of real gifted kids for whom the program was originally designed -- but a lot of kids who would be high achievers any way are being pulled out of Gen Ed and put on an advanced track for reasons that don't seem to be supported by state law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that FCPS doesn't generally consider SOLs because recent research has shown that performance on standardized tests like the SOLs are more indicative of successful student performance in a "gifted" program than IQ scores.

I agree with you. To me one of the best qualifications for an Advanced Academic Program is that a kid is advanced academically. I get the intent of the aptitude tests - trying to identify the high aptitude kids versus the diligent kids who may be advanced at reading and math at the early grades just through additional work. But at a certain point I think you need to weight the actual academic performance. If a kid scores high / advanced on the SOLs then hey the kid should be strongly considered for AAP.

I knew guys in both my undergrad / grad schools who did not have top test scores, but were always near the top of the class across really challenging subjects - they were not just grinders. Those test scores just do not pick up everything - and I say that as someone with really high test scores.

As to the all the "different, gifted learner" stuff, this is hardly even referenced in FCPS descriptions of AAP. This seems more like what some people think the AAP program should be about then what FCPS is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. A couple of you have suggested that we get a retest, and then use that to inquire about Level IV. I struggle with this, and whether or not it is right/appropriate/worth it for our child. When we had him take the WISC-IV at the very end of 2nd grade, it was because we didn't understand why his CogAT and NNAT scores were all over the map, and so off with his behavior and academic performance. At the time, his 2nd grade teacher recommended him for Level IV, but the committee said no b/c of his test scores. We had him take the WISC to get some more understanding, and I'm glad we did because it revealed some underlying problems. The psychologist pointed out how his ADHD and his visual processing issues were likely impacting his scores on several of the subtests. On the other hand, on the subtests in which those issues were not factors, the highest he scored was in the Superior range. Fast forward to today - his report cards, his SOL scores, his GBRS score, and his overall academic performance definitely mean he needs to be challenged. We are so fortunate to have a fantastic gen ed 4th grade teacher who is excited to provide these challenges. So...do I think my son needs AAP? Definitely. Do I think he needs to be in Level III and not just Level II? YES. Do I think he should be in Level IV?? Honestly....I don't know! I know that Level IV is no longer a "gifted" program but an "advanced academics" program. My gut says he'd do just fine in Level IV. And we know other kids who are in Level IV who had lower-than High Superior test scores, but high GBRS scores, and who are doing well. But maybe my son will also continue to do just fine if he stays in gen ed with Level III. This is my big problem with the AAP program in general. I think it works great for those who are truly gifted, I think it does a disservice to those who are borderline Level III-Level IV.

As another point of info, I think I've heard that some schools provide pull-out advanced math instruction starting in the 5th grade to prepare kids to qualify for honors math in 7th grade. Our school does not do this. So for us, this whole Level III vs. Level IV question may have longer term implications for our son.

One of PPs who recommended more testing here: My point in suggesting more testing is not to move him to Level IV, it's to have more evidence with your AART and principal that he needs more at the base school than Level II. Because if he qualifies for Level IV, he qualifies for Level III, right? If you want to keep him at the base school, but you're interested in higher level math, you could always hire a tutor if that's financially feasible for you.

[Anonymous]

Our kid's cogat and nnat scores were all over the map, and it turned out he had Asperger's. We had had some red flags along the way, but had convinced ourselves that he was just gifted and that in the right environment he would be fine.

We didn't connect the odd social behaviors with anything else until the scores came back so strange. Top of the scale in some areas, really low in others. For 'normal' kids, whether they are high or low, they tend to be clustered together.

There are a number of issues that can identified when you get strange patterns on the exams. Schools don't tend to know this, however.

[Anonymous]

previous poster again:

We were told later that those tests are better at identifying kids who are 'really bright' then they are at identifying quirky kids who might still be brilliant. In other words, someone whose IQ is 130 will get identified, but someone whose is 170 might not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:previous poster again:

We were told later that those tests are better at identifying kids who are 'really bright' then they are at identifying quirky kids who might still be brilliant. In other words, someone whose IQ is 130 will get identified, but someone whose is 170 might not.

+1

This is the advantage of a good psychologist to interpret the subtest scores, especially when the WISC_IV is used in combination with other testing instruments.

OP, you may find the Twice Exceptional forum over at the Davidson website to be a good resource.

http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/forums/3/1/Twice_Exceptional.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that FCPS doesn't generally consider SOLs because recent research has shown that performance on standardized tests like the SOLs are more indicative of successful student performance in a "gifted" program than IQ scores.

Yes, but remember, that the gifted program was designed to meet the needs of gifted kids who learned differently, and aren't as often tied to straight arrow achievement as kids who would generally do the best on SOLs. I think you're misreading the research. To me it suggests that for all its pains FCPS still isn't meeting the needs of real gifted kids for whom the program was originally designed -- but a lot of kids who would be high achievers any way are being pulled out of Gen Ed and put on an advanced track for reasons that don't seem to be supported by state law.

Irrelevant, FCPS does not have a gifted program. They have an Advanced Academic Program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that FCPS doesn't generally consider SOLs because recent research has shown that performance on standardized tests like the SOLs are more indicative of successful student performance in a "gifted" program than IQ scores.

Yes, but remember, that the gifted program was designed to meet the needs of gifted kids who learned differently, and aren't as often tied to straight arrow achievement as kids who would generally do the best on SOLs. I think you're misreading the research. To me it suggests that for all its pains FCPS still isn't meeting the needs of real gifted kids for whom the program was originally designed -- but a lot of kids who would be high achievers any way are being pulled out of Gen Ed and put on an advanced track for reasons that don't seem to be supported by state law.

Irrelevant, FCPS does not have a gifted program. They have an Advanced Academic Program.

+1. Tired of that poster throwing up the same old canard. Who cares who it was originally designed for eons ago? it's AAP now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that FCPS doesn't generally consider SOLs because recent research has shown that performance on standardized tests like the SOLs are more indicative of successful student performance in a "gifted" program than IQ scores.

Yes, but remember, that the gifted program was designed to meet the needs of gifted kids who learned differently, and aren't as often tied to straight arrow achievement as kids who would generally do the best on SOLs. I think you're misreading the research. To me it suggests that for all its pains FCPS still isn't meeting the needs of real gifted kids for whom the program was originally designed -- but a lot of kids who would be high achievers any way are being pulled out of Gen Ed and put on an advanced track for reasons that don't seem to be supported by state law.

Irrelevant, FCPS does not have a gifted program. They have an Advanced Academic Program.

+1. Tired of that poster throwing up the same old canard. Who cares who it was originally designed for eons ago? it's AAP now.

"That poster"? You mean the many people who are well aware that while VA state law mandates "gifted education," AAP is simply not filling that role? If FCPS is actually required, by law, to provide a gifted program, then perhaps they should make sure the kids in the program are actually gifted and not simply advanced in certain subjects. The program as it was designed "eons" ago - I guess you mean waay back in the early 2000s and before - was designed for kids who actually required a different learning environment. The kids in AAP today? Most of them are indistinguishable from most Gen Ed kids. What's the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that FCPS doesn't generally consider SOLs because recent research has shown that performance on standardized tests like the SOLs are more indicative of successful student performance in a "gifted" program than IQ scores.

Yes, but remember, that the gifted program was designed to meet the needs of gifted kids who learned differently, and aren't as often tied to straight arrow achievement as kids who would generally do the best on SOLs. I think you're misreading the research. To me it suggests that for all its pains FCPS still isn't meeting the needs of real gifted kids for whom the program was originally designed -- but a lot of kids who would be high achievers any way are being pulled out of Gen Ed and put on an advanced track for reasons that don't seem to be supported by state law.

Irrelevant, FCPS does not have a gifted program. They have an Advanced Academic Program.

+1. Tired of that poster throwing up the same old canard. Who cares who it was originally designed for eons ago? it's AAP now.

"That poster"? You mean the many people who are well aware that while VA state law mandates "gifted education," AAP is simply not filling that role? If FCPS is actually required, by law, to provide a gifted program, then perhaps they should make sure the kids in the program are actually gifted and not simply advanced in certain subjects. The program as it was designed "eons" ago - I guess you mean waay back in the early 2000s and before - was designed for kids who actually required a different learning environment. The kids in AAP today? Most of them are indistinguishable from most Gen Ed kids. What's the point?

Um...no. AAP does meet the state requirements according to the legislature and the school board. What are your qualifications to rule otherwise?

[Anonymous]

I can not believe people still talk about AAP as not a gifted program. AAP is the FCPS program for gifted academics. They changed the name from GT to AAP because it only is about academics.