What are the qualifications for an AART?

[Anonymous]

What are the qualifications for an AART? Do they have sufficient training in developmental psychology, or cognitive science? I would assume that they have to hold a degree in one or more technical areas, since they are responsible for teaching "critical reasoning" and assessing the students on their Gifted Behavior - is there a place where any of this is published? It seems that the AAP program is growing at a much faster pace than they would be able to hire reasonably qualified individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the qualifications for an AART? Do they have sufficient training in developmental psychology, or cognitive science? I would assume that they have to hold a degree in one or more technical areas, since they are responsible for teaching "critical reasoning" and assessing the students on their Gifted Behavior - is there a place where any of this is published? It seems that the AAP program is growing at a much faster pace than they would be able to hire reasonably qualified individuals.

They are teachers with some extra classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the qualifications for an AART? Do they have sufficient training in developmental psychology, or cognitive science? I would assume that they have to hold a degree in one or more technical areas, since they are responsible for teaching "critical reasoning" and assessing the students on their Gifted Behavior - is there a place where any of this is published? It seems that the AAP program is growing at a much faster pace than they would be able to hire reasonably qualified individuals.

Teachers, the principal, the AART, etc. fill out the GBRS as a committee..do you think they all need this specialized training?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the qualifications for an AART? Do they have sufficient training in developmental psychology, or cognitive science? I would assume that they have to hold a degree in one or more technical areas, since they are responsible for teaching "critical reasoning" and assessing the students on their Gifted Behavior - is there a place where any of this is published? It seems that the AAP program is growing at a much faster pace than they would be able to hire reasonably qualified individuals.

Teachers, the principal, the AART, etc. fill out the GBRS as a committee..do you think they all need this specialized training?

Not PP. I actually don't think the principal should be involved in the process at all. Principals don't have significant contact with the kids in an academic setting, so have no clue whether a specific child consistently exhibits certain behaviors/traits. The counselor who was on the committee assigning my DC's GBRS wasn't even the one assigned to DC's grade. I find it interesting that all these people, other than the teacher, who had minimal contact with DC were on the committee assigning a number to how frequently DC did certain things. It just seems random to me. I think the teacher's opinion is what should be determinative. I never got the whole committee assessment thing. The first and second grade teachers should be it.

[Anonymous]

Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

[Anonymous]

Most of the specials teachers and librarian are at the GBRS meeting along with principal, asst principal, teacher and AART

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the specials teachers and librarian are at the GBRS meeting along with principal, asst principal, teacher and AART

at least at our ES

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

[Anonymous]

AARTs are more like admins than teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

And they are responsible for rating our children on their abilities...ugh.

This post and the lack of objective, well-trained qualifications mentioned on this thread are yet another glimpse into the bizarre, political and poorly designed ways our schools are determining how to educate our children. It baffles me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

Curious to know what is the clinical significance? My kid's GAI is 139 and FSIQ is 130 due to low processing speed. Does this mean that GAI is more accurate than FSIQ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

Curious to know what is the clinical significance? My kid's GAI is 139 and FSIQ is 130 due to low processing speed. Does this mean that GAI is more accurate than FSIQ?

No, it means that your son MAY have extreme anxiety, ADHD or possibly something else going on to account for the larger spread between the two numbers. He may not, but he may. The GAI won't be considered, however, by the committee unless possibly he is diagnosed with something AND treatment starts thereafter (i.e. he took WISC, saw discrepancy, was diagnosed, started treatment, can't redo WISC b/c hasn't been a year, but you believe that explains the lower processing speed.)