GT/AAP Appeals WISC Scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where your child is standing with respect to what? Other kids' WISC scores?
some parents need to get a life and let their children be children!

+1

[Anonymous]

Maybe we I'll do this if we don't get in on appeals!

[Anonymous]

I'll come back to let you guys know of the decision, so the above data becomes more useful!

And to the pp who don't like this idea.. this thread is strickly created for WISC scores. If you don't care to share your scores, just walk away. This is not a discussion board.

[Anonymous]

9:48: Your PTA is not on the committee. It is possible that schools inflate or deflate the GBRS, but the county is the county. Getting admitted into Louise Archer is not harder or easier than getting in from Dogwood.

[Anonymous]

For # 10 on the list GRBS is 12
-

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:48: Your PTA is not on the committee. It is possible that schools inflate or deflate the GBRS, but the county is the county. Getting admitted into Louise Archer is not harder or easier than getting in from Dogwood.

I beg to differ. If what you say is true, then the committee wouldn't do everything in secret. I think if we had an open policy you would be surprised!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7:15: our PTA advised that this year the cmte did take school placement into consideration; iow, schools with lower numbers had a lower threshold in comparison to schools with more in the pool candidates. So, yes, perhaps renting in a low end district and then xfering your dc to your actual home base is the way to go.

I call bullshit. Which PTA was this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:48: Your PTA is not on the committee. It is possible that schools inflate or deflate the GBRS, but the county is the county. Getting admitted into Louise Archer is not harder or easier than getting in from Dogwood.

I beg to differ. If what you say is true, then the committee wouldn't do everything in secret. I think if we had an open policy you would be surprised!

There is one reason for the committee to do evaluations in secret: they are evaluating individual children on the merits. The privacy concerns are huge if they were in public. Otherwise, my child's performance on the NNAT & FAT, as well as all grades and GBRS would effectively be public record.

Just like, my job evaluation is not public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7:15: our PTA advised that this year the cmte did take school placement into consideration; iow, schools with lower numbers had a lower threshold in comparison to schools with more in the pool candidates. So, yes, perhaps renting in a low end district and then xfering your dc to your actual home base is the way to go.

I call bullshit. Which PTA was this?

I would like to know how the PTA would know this, anyway. This sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7:15: our PTA advised that this year the cmte did take school placement into consideration; iow, schools with lower numbers had a lower threshold in comparison to schools with more in the pool candidates. So, yes, perhaps renting in a low end district and then xfering your dc to your actual home base is the way to go.

This statement from the PTA is absolutely incorrect.

[Anonymous]

call bs or say conspiracy but it is what it is - why would I make this up? weird!

And please, let's not compare your job evaluation to the process. No, this process is secret for the exact reason mentioned earlier. If not, open up the process- no names of course, or id numbers, just the scores and GBRS that make up the AAP class of 20XX. Why would that need to be secret? Because there are too many unqualified in the program and too many who DESERVE to be in who aren't and this would probably open FCPS up to litigation, I realize.

[Anonymous]

I don't think the statement is incorrect per se. I do recall the county saying they were going to make a concerted effort to increase admission percentiles for underrepresented groups. That easily could translate into having lower bars or "different" standards at different schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the statement is incorrect per se. I do recall the county saying they were going to make a concerted effort to increase admission percentiles for underrepresented groups. That easily could translate into having lower bars or "different" standards at different schools.

Yes, the county is making a concerted efforts to increase the number of students receiving advanced academic services from historically underrepresented populations, including FARMS students and twice exceptional students. This does NOT mean the county "is taking school placement into consideration" but that they are seeking to provide Young Scholars services to more students. It is also why Dan Storck's amendment to the FY 2014 Budget (barely) passed.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=97VR926CD4CB

I move to amend the main motion by:
a) reducing preventive maintenance at $0.5 million
b) providing additional advanced academic and Young Scholar support in elementary schools with the highest risk indices at $0.5 million

Motion by Daniel G Storck, second by Sandra S Evans.
Motion Carries
Yes: Patricia S Reed, Megan McLaughlin, Daniel G Storck, Patricia Hynes - Vice Chairman, Ilryong Moon - Chairman, Jane K Strauss, Sandra S Evans
No: Tamara D Kaufax, Ryan McElveen, Elizabeth Schultz, Theodore Velkoff, Kathy L Smith

[Anonymous]

Uh.. let's get back to the topic.
So, what was your DC's WISC/GBRS scores?

[Anonymous]

WISC IV:
VC: 132 (17, 14, 15)
PR: 129 (11, 15, 18)
WM: 97 (6, 13)
PS: 85 (6, 9)
GBRS: 11
FSIQ: 119
Not appealing this year due to the WM and PS scores, per Dr. suggestion - doing a full neuro psych instead to determine the reason and then appealing next year.

WISC IV:
VC: 130 (16, 14, 15)
PR: 127 (11, 15, 17)
WM: 123 (15, 13)
PS: 112 (14, 10)
FSIQ: 130
GBRS: 13
Appealing