Your ignorance is showing. |
They may meet and discuss it has a panel but the AART fills it out. I know my DC teacher was shocked when I showed her the GBRS. It clearly wasn't what she recommended. Additionally the work samples submitted were so bad it had to be intentional. |
| ^I'm pretty sure that my kids' school is the exact opposite, where the homeroom teacher sets the number on her own. My child's panel only included the homeroom teacher, the principal, and the AART. It did not include my child's math teacher or reading teacher. The principal doesn't really interact much with the kids, and the AART has fairly limited contact, so the score must mostly come from the homeroom teacher. |
| This thread is now becoming filled with extraneous conversation that may make it difficult for someone to find results. Let’s start a new thread now. |
| Our GBRS was signed by AART and principal in addition to 2nd grade teacher but it was clear the teacher did all of it and the other 2 signed off on it. |
|
NNAT:117
CogAT: 130 GBRS: 9 2nd grade grades were all over the place -- 4s in math, 2/3 in language arts, mix of 2,3,4 in other subjects. On appeal, added: WISC: 131 and a letter of recommendation IN |
Sorry In. Somebody said WISC 121 is not appeal worthy but with good scores previously it gives them another look and the score is still decent. For somebody just out because of GBRS this is a good enough score if combined with other high scores. The tester said she had seen quite a few get in on appeal with 120+ WISC scores. Also threw in the Woodcock Johnson math which were also decent, better than the WISC. |
We got rejected because of the GBRS 6, just posted above. Also had weak work samples in the original package. On appeal put in 5 strong work samples, 4 with perfect scores on algebra type questions and one strong writing sample, and surely this helped. Also included 5 letters of recommendation. Think this also helped get in on appeal. |
|
NNAT 122
CoGat 124 GBRS 12 No other tests (WISC etc.,) Appealed with letter and new samples. IN. |
I am confused, why didn't you include recommendation and sample letters during first time? |
|
Reposting from old thread:
ORIGINAL - DC 1 (4th Grade) NNAT - 27th percentile (cant remember score) CoGAT -121 DRA - 40 (end of 3rd grade) GBRS - 13, identification as advanced in math APPEAL WISC - 123, but VCI 99.5 DRA - 50, April 2018 IReady - lots of 5,6 in both Math and Language Arts Letter from Math Club New work samples - provided by teachers IEP - Dyslexia and ADHD In or Out: IN ORIGINAL - DC 2 NNAT - 108 CoGAT - 118 GBRS - 15 APPEAL WISC - 121 but VCI only 96 DRA - 38 (2nd Grade) Doing advanced Math Several iready scores ABOVE 2nd grade level New work samples NOT provided by teacher In or Out: OUT In hindsight, I should NOT have submitted WISC -but relied on DRA, Advanced Math identification and iReady. |
| 5:00, fwiw, I don’t think you should not have submitted the WISC, it was higher than NNAT or COGAT. |
Unless the iready scores were exceptionally high (like mostly Level 4 and Level 5), I don't think it was going to matter much. FWIW, your child will still be placed in an above-grade level reading group next year, and will still be in advanced math, and that combination isn't as dismal as so many people here seem to think. |
I wonder if your child mostly got in from the second look at the original package. The WISC score weakens the package considerably, and a WISC 121 really shouldn't get in. But, kids with CogAT and NNAT in the 99th percentile, as your child had, shouldn't have been rejected in the first place. GBRS should only be used to help kids get in who otherwise don't have the scores. It shouldn't be used to exclude kids who score in-pool on both the CogAT and NNAT. |
If this is what down, that's obviously crap. I'm in agreement that AAP should consider multiple data points, but judging by some of these results, it's too subjective. Why not start with only Naglieri, Cogat Verbal, Cogat quantitative, and Cogat nonverbal. If two meet the cutoff, you're in. If you have only one that meets the cutoff, teachers fill out the GBRS to possibly provide the second datapoint. Makes too much sense? Would use less manpower and make the system more predictable? |