Would a GBRS of 16 automatically mean the kid will be AAP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np. What if the child has a very high GBRS but the comments don't support such a score?

I felt our child didn't deserve a 16 and the comments didn't support a 16, but this child was in pool for both tests, so I'm not surprised the child got in. I think the GRBS should have been a bit lower but there was no reason to contest it.

Thanks for your response. This is the case with my child as well. I just can't reconcile the high score with such weak and minimal comments. My child is also in pool based on test scores.

I'm the pp you were responding to. What I was told through the grapevine was that teachers don't put as much effort into the comments for the kids who are in pool especially if they are in pool for both tests. They spend more time on the kids who didn't test well. This made sense to me.

Your "grapevine" is wrong. My in pool kid had 4 pages of single spaced typed comments for her 16 GBRS.

Yes, yes, we know, you're very proud of your four pages. You've posted it in several threads. Some schools don't seem to put as much effort into the commentary. It doesn't mean the kids are less deserving. Granted, my in-pool DD only got a 14, but her commentary was about 12 comments, kind of like the person whose kid got an 8. It means nothing more than that the school/teacher didn't put much effort into it. You can't really read the tea leaves in the GBRS commentary. It's the number that counts.

Wait till she hears of the in pool kid with 4 pages of singe spaced typed comments in 6 point font!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np. What if the child has a very high GBRS but the comments don't support such a score?

I felt our child didn't deserve a 16 and the comments didn't support a 16, but this child was in pool for both tests, so I'm not surprised the child got in. I think the GRBS should have been a bit lower but there was no reason to contest it.

Thanks for your response. This is the case with my child as well. I just can't reconcile the high score with such weak and minimal comments. My child is also in pool based on test scores.

I'm the pp you were responding to. What I was told through the grapevine was that teachers don't put as much effort into the comments for the kids who are in pool especially if they are in pool for both tests. They spend more time on the kids who didn't test well. This made sense to me.

Your "grapevine" is wrong. My in pool kid had 4 pages of single spaced typed comments for her 16 GBRS.

Yes, yes, we know, you're very proud of your four pages. You've posted it in several threads. Some schools don't seem to put as much effort into the commentary. It doesn't mean the kids are less deserving. Granted, my in-pool DD only got a 14, but her commentary was about 12 comments, kind of like the person whose kid got an 8. It means nothing more than that the school/teacher didn't put much effort into it. You can't really read the tea leaves in the GBRS commentary. It's the number that counts.

I think the point of the post was that don't believe everything you hear through the grapevine.

[Anonymous]

How many ppl on an average gets 16 GBRS in a class? Looks like lot of DCUM kids have received 16 GBRS. Is it easy to get 16?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np. What if the child has a very high GBRS but the comments don't support such a score?

I felt our child didn't deserve a 16 and the comments didn't support a 16, but this child was in pool for both tests, so I'm not surprised the child got in. I think the GRBS should have been a bit lower but there was no reason to contest it.

Thanks for your response. This is the case with my child as well. I just can't reconcile the high score with such weak and minimal comments. My child is also in pool based on test scores.

I'm the pp you were responding to. What I was told through the grapevine was that teachers don't put as much effort into the comments for the kids who are in pool especially if they are in pool for both tests. They spend more time on the kids who didn't test well. This made sense to me.

Your "grapevine" is wrong. My in pool kid had 4 pages of single spaced typed comments for her 16 GBRS.

Yes, yes, we know, you're very proud of your four pages. You've posted it in several threads. Some schools don't seem to put as much effort into the commentary. It doesn't mean the kids are less deserving. Granted, my in-pool DD only got a 14, but her commentary was about 12 comments, kind of like the person whose kid got an 8. It means nothing more than that the school/teacher didn't put much effort into it. You can't really read the tea leaves in the GBRS commentary. It's the number that counts.

I think the point of the post was that don't believe everything you hear through the grapevine.

No, the point of the post was to brag, again, about the four pages of single-spaced, typed comments. It may well be at the PP's school, the grapevine is correct and they don't put in a huge amount of effort on commentary for in-pool students. At our school that certainly seems to be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np. What if the child has a very high GBRS but the comments don't support such a score?

I felt our child didn't deserve a 16 and the comments didn't support a 16, but this child was in pool for both tests, so I'm not surprised the child got in. I think the GRBS should have been a bit lower but there was no reason to contest it.

Thanks for your response. This is the case with my child as well. I just can't reconcile the high score with such weak and minimal comments. My child is also in pool based on test scores.

I'm the pp you were responding to. What I was told through the grapevine was that teachers don't put as much effort into the comments for the kids who are in pool especially if they are in pool for both tests. They spend more time on the kids who didn't test well. This made sense to me.

Your "grapevine" is wrong. My in pool kid had 4 pages of single spaced typed comments for her 16 GBRS.

Yes, yes, we know, you're very proud of your four pages. You've posted it in several threads. Some schools don't seem to put as much effort into the commentary. It doesn't mean the kids are less deserving. Granted, my in-pool DD only got a 14, but her commentary was about 12 comments, kind of like the person whose kid got an 8. It means nothing more than that the school/teacher didn't put much effort into it. You can't really read the tea leaves in the GBRS commentary. It's the number that counts.

I think the point of the post was that don't believe everything you hear through the grapevine.

No, the point of the post was to brag, again, about the four pages of single-spaced, typed comments. It may well be at the PP's school, the grapevine is correct and they don't put in a huge amount of effort on commentary for in-pool students. At our school that certainly seems to be the case.

How can you say what is the case at any school. How many are in your data sampling? I have zero idea what the page length or GBRS numbers are of any of my friends' kids. The most I know is that two people separately noted they were disappointed with a "low" GBRS (their classification.) I don't think the length of the GBRS commentary is a brag...after all, isn't the number what is impressive, not the length of commentary? A kid with 4 pages of comments but a 9 isn't as impressive as a kid with 2 pages of comments and a 16, no?

[Anonymous]

One of my DC had a 16 gbrs with just a few sentences. I would think teachers have better things to do than type up 4 pages about a kid. If a child is getting a 16, then AAP should be a given and the teacher shouldn't have to waste so much time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of my DC had a 16 gbrs with just a few sentences. I would think teachers have better things to do than type up 4 pages about a kid. If a child is getting a 16, then AAP should be a given and the teacher shouldn't have to waste so much time.

Former FCPS teacher here. Our school required extensive written comments to back up scores, especially very high ones.

[Anonymous]

Having read GBRS comments in various screening files, the quality of the comments absolutely varies depending on the school/group that wrote them. Some are minimal and not helpful. Others are detailed with specific examples. It varies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having read GBRS comments in various screening files, the quality of the comments absolutely varies depending on the school/group that wrote them. Some are minimal and not helpful. Others are detailed with specific examples. It varies.

In your experience, does the committee ultimately look at the score alone or do they factor in the comments in the decision making process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of my DC had a 16 gbrs with just a few sentences. I would think teachers have better things to do than type up 4 pages about a kid. If a child is getting a 16, then AAP should be a given and the teacher shouldn't have to waste so much time.

Former FCPS teacher here. Our school required extensive written comments to back up scores, especially very high ones.

How easy is it to get 16? On an average, how many kids get 16 in a class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of my DC had a 16 gbrs with just a few sentences. I would think teachers have better things to do than type up 4 pages about a kid. If a child is getting a 16, then AAP should be a given and the teacher shouldn't have to waste so much time.

Former FCPS teacher here. Our school required extensive written comments to back up scores, especially very high ones.

How easy is it to get 16? On an average, how many kids get 16 in a class?

It depends on the teachers, frankly. I was trained that a 16 is very, very rare and it might be a child you see perhaps once or twice in many, many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having read GBRS comments in various screening files, the quality of the comments absolutely varies depending on the school/group that wrote them. Some are minimal and not helpful. Others are detailed with specific examples. It varies.

Other than your own kids, how many screening files have you seen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having read GBRS comments in various screening files, the quality of the comments absolutely varies depending on the school/group that wrote them. Some are minimal and not helpful. Others are detailed with specific examples. It varies.

Other than your own kids, how many screening files have you seen?

Many, many people screen files, including teachers. It's not far-fetched to think there are folks on this site who have reviewed files.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having read GBRS comments in various screening files, the quality of the comments absolutely varies depending on the school/group that wrote them. Some are minimal and not helpful. Others are detailed with specific examples. It varies.

Other than your own kids, how many screening files have you seen?

Many, many people screen files, including teachers. It's not far-fetched to think there are folks on this site who have reviewed files.

I'm waiting to see if that is what she now claims. I strongly suspect that if that were the case, she'd have prefaced it by, "I'm a FCPS teacher..." She didn't, so I stand by original thought that her vast experience is her own children's files.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having read GBRS comments in various screening files, the quality of the comments absolutely varies depending on the school/group that wrote them. Some are minimal and not helpful. Others are detailed with specific examples. It varies.

Other than your own kids, how many screening files have you seen?

Many, many people screen files, including teachers. It's not far-fetched to think there are folks on this site who have reviewed files.

I'm waiting to see if that is what she now claims. I strongly suspect that if that were the case, she'd have prefaced it by, "I'm a FCPS teacher..." She didn't, so I stand by original thought that her vast experience is her own children's files.

Wait away, if that's your thing. But so what? Even if she read three screening files for her own three kids it wouldn't make her statement about variability any less valid. Do you actually doubt the conclusion "it varies"?