Next step if appeal is denied?

[Anonymous]

OP, you sound 100% certifiable. I truly hope your child isn't accepted if only because you need a harsh reality check before you completely screw up your poor child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
IQ is just one part of the picture. High IQ (assuming test done via reputable sources)with poor/mdeicore NNAT/Cogat/GBRS raises concern. Generally children who made in the first round will have high IQ/NNAT/Cogat/GBRS. Most of the kids we though will make to AAP were selected in first round in my DC class. There were 1-2 surprises (but we didn't know the kids that well)

Um... It raises concern, but clearly not the type of concern you're imagining. Kids with high IQ who are underachieving in class are the ones most in need of gifted services. Their needs are already not being met in gen ed, and they're already falling through the cracks. The overwhelming majority of kids in AAP are bright, high-achievers with a fairly enriched home life (whether through high SES or very motivated parents). These children are the ones who would bloom wherever they're planted and don't strictly need AAP. Kids who are actually gifted but are either underachieving or disengaged with the classroom are the ones who NEED AAP.

The PP's kid with the 140 IQ needs AAP. The kids in your DC's class who were selected first round probably don't need AAP. FWIW, one of my kids is a non-gifted, bright, high-achiever in AAP. She benefits from AAP, but certainly doesn't "need" it. The notion that a kid with a 140 IQ doesn't need AAP or belong in AAP is clearly ridiculous.

A poor NNAT or CoGAT certainly does NOT mean a child is underachieving. You’re assuming that a poor test score reflects achievement. My child received what I considered poor NNAT/CoGAT score and he is certainly not an underachiever. Yet his WISC shows giftedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AAP is the system that FCPS uses to meet the State of Virginia's mandate for gifted education. If it's serving the overly-enriched, motivated, bright kids at the expense of gifted kids, that's a huge problem. When kids with 130 + IQ as measured by a licensed psychologist (i.e., kids who are gifted) are not being provided gifted education, then FCPS is failing to meet the state mandate for gifted education.

I agree with you that underachieving gifted kids need something different from AAP in its current form. FCPS is just required to provide that something, rather than tossing those kids into gen ed.

Are y'all getting ready to sue FCPS, even though you haven't even received your appeal results yet?

Quoted PP here:
I'm not going to sue FCPS, since both of my kids got into AAP and I have no sour grapes. I just recognize that most kids in AAP aren't really that smart or that special, and there's so much delusion on this board about being "selected first round." My older child is a bright (like 95th percentile intelligence), motivated kid, and she's very middle of the pack in AAP. I have no delusions that she deserves or needs AAP more than a child with a freaking 140 IQ!! It seems like many parents with bright, non-gifted, hardworking, overly enriched children are latching onto that "first round selection" as some sort of proof that their child is more special or gifted than that child actually is. I can't imagine any other reason why anyone would argue that a child with a 140 IQ doesn't belong in AAP. They also seem to latch onto the notion of the infallibility of the committee, as if selection somehow proves that their child is more gifted than the actually gifted children who were rejected. It really is ridiculous.

+1000!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AAP is the system that FCPS uses to meet the State of Virginia's mandate for gifted education. If it's serving the overly-enriched, motivated, bright kids at the expense of gifted kids, that's a huge problem. When kids with 130 + IQ as measured by a licensed psychologist (i.e., kids who are gifted) are not being provided gifted education, then FCPS is failing to meet the state mandate for gifted education.

I agree with you that underachieving gifted kids need something different from AAP in its current form. FCPS is just required to provide that something, rather than tossing those kids into gen ed.

Are y'all getting ready to sue FCPS, even though you haven't even received your appeal results yet?

Quoted PP here:
I'm not going to sue FCPS, since both of my kids got into AAP and I have no sour grapes. I just recognize that most kids in AAP aren't really that smart or that special, and there's so much delusion on this board about being "selected first round." My older child is a bright (like 95th percentile intelligence), motivated kid, and she's very middle of the pack in AAP. I have no delusions that she deserves or needs AAP more than a child with a freaking 140 IQ!! It seems like many parents with bright, non-gifted, hardworking, overly enriched children are latching onto that "first round selection" as some sort of proof that their child is more special or gifted than that child actually is. I can't imagine any other reason why anyone would argue that a child with a 140 IQ doesn't belong in AAP. They also seem to latch onto the notion of the infallibility of the committee, as if selection somehow proves that their child is more gifted than the actually gifted children who were rejected. It really is ridiculous.

There are a lot of really passionate responses on this thread, including your first post. There are posters who are furious with FCPS for not finding their not-in-pool-with-NNAT-or-Cogat-but-now-have-appealed-with-140-WISC kids eligible first round. The anger seems a bit premature to me.

But I think what they are actually angry about is not that their kid was not selected first round but that they have seen here (albeit, on an anonymous message board where anyone can say anything) that there were kids with 130+ WISC V FSIQ scores denied in the first round despite including the WISC in the original package. As such, they are contemplating what feels like a very real possibility of being denied despite gifted-range IQ. I agree that it is premature to be overly worried about it at this point, but if it is in fact true that FCPS is rejecting kids with gifted level IQs, short of actual evidence that specific psychologists are "selling" high IQ scores for the purposes of AAP selection, this is a big problem. And I say this as someone whose kid got in on the first round.

THIS! You are describing me. I have not yet posted in this thread but I am reading and it is infuriating. I am angry. I just don't post. I am angry my child was denied first found with a WISC of 132. I am angry I had to spend more money on a SB where my child scored 137 and I can't take any comfort in that because if they can reject her 132, why not her 137? I'm angry that people on here suggest because she was denied first round she doesn't belong in AAP. That makes no sense to tell someone when you have no idea who their child is or what their IQs are. The committee can make errors. To suggest my child doesn't belong simply because they were denied first round but that children who were admitted first round who don't know their IQs (so admittedly it could be high) but who got in with CogATs and NNAT lower than my child's IQ are somehow more deserving is inaccurate and maddening. We won't sue because we can't afford to but I would see nothing wrong with a family suing FCPS for denying their child with 1, but especially 2, IQ score(s) in the 98% who were denied.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AAP is the system that FCPS uses to meet the State of Virginia's mandate for gifted education. If it's serving the overly-enriched, motivated, bright kids at the expense of gifted kids, that's a huge problem. When kids with 130 + IQ as measured by a licensed psychologist (i.e., kids who are gifted) are not being provided gifted education, then FCPS is failing to meet the state mandate for gifted education.

I agree with you that underachieving gifted kids need something different from AAP in its current form. FCPS is just required to provide that something, rather than tossing those kids into gen ed.

Are y'all getting ready to sue FCPS, even though you haven't even received your appeal results yet?

Quoted PP here:
I'm not going to sue FCPS, since both of my kids got into AAP and I have no sour grapes. I just recognize that most kids in AAP aren't really that smart or that special, and there's so much delusion on this board about being "selected first round." My older child is a bright (like 95th percentile intelligence), motivated kid, and she's very middle of the pack in AAP. I have no delusions that she deserves or needs AAP more than a child with a freaking 140 IQ!! It seems like many parents with bright, non-gifted, hardworking, overly enriched children are latching onto that "first round selection" as some sort of proof that their child is more special or gifted than that child actually is. I can't imagine any other reason why anyone would argue that a child with a 140 IQ doesn't belong in AAP. They also seem to latch onto the notion of the infallibility of the committee, as if selection somehow proves that their child is more gifted than the actually gifted children who were rejected. It really is ridiculous.

There are a lot of really passionate responses on this thread, including your first post. There are posters who are furious with FCPS for not finding their not-in-pool-with-NNAT-or-Cogat-but-now-have-appealed-with-140-WISC kids eligible first round. The anger seems a bit premature to me.

But I think what they are actually angry about is not that their kid was not selected first round but that they have seen here (albeit, on an anonymous message board where anyone can say anything) that there were kids with 130+ WISC V FSIQ scores denied in the first round despite including the WISC in the original package. As such, they are contemplating what feels like a very real possibility of being denied despite gifted-range IQ. I agree that it is premature to be overly worried about it at this point, but if it is in fact true that FCPS is rejecting kids with gifted level IQs, short of actual evidence that specific psychologists are "selling" high IQ scores for the purposes of AAP selection, this is a big problem. And I say this as someone whose kid got in on the first round.

Dumb reply. No professional would put his/her career on the line to “sell” a WISC score. Apparently, your kid got in with lower scores and not able to get into Mensa. Sad for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AAP is the system that FCPS uses to meet the State of Virginia's mandate for gifted education. If it's serving the overly-enriched, motivated, bright kids at the expense of gifted kids, that's a huge problem. When kids with 130 + IQ as measured by a licensed psychologist (i.e., kids who are gifted) are not being provided gifted education, then FCPS is failing to meet the state mandate for gifted education.

I agree with you that underachieving gifted kids need something different from AAP in its current form. FCPS is just required to provide that something, rather than tossing those kids into gen ed.

Are y'all getting ready to sue FCPS, even though you haven't even received your appeal results yet?

Quoted PP here:
I'm not going to sue FCPS, since both of my kids got into AAP and I have no sour grapes. I just recognize that most kids in AAP aren't really that smart or that special, and there's so much delusion on this board about being "selected first round." My older child is a bright (like 95th percentile intelligence), motivated kid, and she's very middle of the pack in AAP. I have no delusions that she deserves or needs AAP more than a child with a freaking 140 IQ!! It seems like many parents with bright, non-gifted, hardworking, overly enriched children are latching onto that "first round selection" as some sort of proof that their child is more special or gifted than that child actually is. I can't imagine any other reason why anyone would argue that a child with a 140 IQ doesn't belong in AAP. They also seem to latch onto the notion of the infallibility of the committee, as if selection somehow proves that their child is more gifted than the actually gifted children who were rejected. It really is ridiculous.

There are a lot of really passionate responses on this thread, including your first post. There are posters who are furious with FCPS for not finding their not-in-pool-with-NNAT-or-Cogat-but-now-have-appealed-with-140-WISC kids eligible first round. The anger seems a bit premature to me.

But I think what they are actually angry about is not that their kid was not selected first round but that they have seen here (albeit, on an anonymous message board where anyone can say anything) that there were kids with 130+ WISC V FSIQ scores denied in the first round despite including the WISC in the original package. As such, they are contemplating what feels like a very real possibility of being denied despite gifted-range IQ. I agree that it is premature to be overly worried about it at this point, but if it is in fact true that FCPS is rejecting kids with gifted level IQs, short of actual evidence that specific psychologists are "selling" high IQ scores for the purposes of AAP selection, this is a big problem. And I say this as someone whose kid got in on the first round.

Dumb reply. No professional would put his/her career on the line to “sell” a WISC score. Apparently, your kid got in with lower scores and not able to get into Mensa. Sad for you.

I wasn’t saying any professional would do that. I was saying iIF such evidence existed that would be the ONLY reason to reject such kids. And I don’t know what “lower scores” you are referencing. My kid has never had any reason to take an IQ test but he scored 148 on the CogAT and had a 16 GBRS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A poor NNAT or CoGAT certainly does NOT mean a child is underachieving. You’re assuming that a poor test score reflects achievement. My child received what I considered poor NNAT/CoGAT score and he is certainly not an underachiever. Yet his WISC shows giftedness.

A low GBRS could easily indicate some degree of underachieving or a disconnect with the regular classroom. I don't think any kids were rejected with both a high GBRS and a gifted level WISC in the original application package.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Choose better the next time you buy a house?

That way you will be happy with your kids home elementary no matter what happens.

AAP is just a short window of time OP

6 years is not a short window of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A poor NNAT or CoGAT certainly does NOT mean a child is underachieving. You’re assuming that a poor test score reflects achievement. My child received what I considered poor NNAT/CoGAT score and he is certainly not an underachiever. Yet his WISC shows giftedness.

A low GBRS could easily indicate some degree of underachieving or a disconnect with the regular classroom. I don't think any kids were rejected with both a high GBRS and a gifted level WISC in the original application package.

GBRS is meaningful only if the Teacher and AART are really into studying child behavior and intelligence. Other wise it;s just lot of BS. For the committees to look at GBRS as if is gold is irritating to say the least. IQ tests show the REAL gifted behaviors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A poor NNAT or CoGAT certainly does NOT mean a child is underachieving. You’re assuming that a poor test score reflects achievement. My child received what I considered poor NNAT/CoGAT score and he is certainly not an underachiever. Yet his WISC shows giftedness.

A low GBRS could easily indicate some degree of underachieving or a disconnect with the regular classroom. I don't think any kids were rejected with both a high GBRS and a gifted level WISC in the original application package.

GBRS is meaningful only if the Teacher and AART are really into studying child behavior and intelligence. Other wise it;s just lot of BS. For the committees to look at GBRS as if is gold is irritating to say the least. IQ tests show the REAL gifted behaviors.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A poor NNAT or CoGAT certainly does NOT mean a child is underachieving. You’re assuming that a poor test score reflects achievement. My child received what I considered poor NNAT/CoGAT score and he is certainly not an underachiever. Yet his WISC shows giftedness.

A low GBRS could easily indicate some degree of underachieving or a disconnect with the regular classroom. I don't think any kids were rejected with both a high GBRS and a gifted level WISC in the original application package.

You lumped in GBRS with NNAT and Cogat scores in your original post...you said low NNAT/CoGAT/GBRS...you assumed low scores on the tests equaled low achievement. Also, I also believe that low GBRS doesn’t necessarily indicate low achievement. It simple means the teacher isn’t seeing what she considers gifted behaviors. Gifted behaviors also don’t always correlate with high achievement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A poor NNAT or CoGAT certainly does NOT mean a child is underachieving. You’re assuming that a poor test score reflects achievement. My child received what I considered poor NNAT/CoGAT score and he is certainly not an underachiever. Yet his WISC shows giftedness.

A low GBRS could easily indicate some degree of underachieving or a disconnect with the regular classroom. I don't think any kids were rejected with both a high GBRS and a gifted level WISC in the original application package.

Now what do you consider a high GBRS? My kid got a 13. Waiting on appeal decision.

[Anonymous]

With an IQ of 140, your kid should do really well in General Ed. I'm sure he will never be bored because gifted kids are always engaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With an IQ of 140, your kid should do really well in General Ed. I'm sure he will never be bored because gifted kids are always engaged.

Lol

Well done, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A poor NNAT or CoGAT certainly does NOT mean a child is underachieving. You’re assuming that a poor test score reflects achievement. My child received what I considered poor NNAT/CoGAT score and he is certainly not an underachiever. Yet his WISC shows giftedness.

A low GBRS could easily indicate some degree of underachieving or a disconnect with the regular classroom. I don't think any kids were rejected with both a high GBRS and a gifted level WISC in the original application package.

You lumped in GBRS with NNAT and Cogat scores in your original post...you said low NNAT/CoGAT/GBRS...you assumed low scores on the tests equaled low achievement. Also, I also believe that low GBRS doesn’t necessarily indicate low achievement. It simple means the teacher isn’t seeing what she considers gifted behaviors. Gifted behaviors also don’t always correlate with high achievement.

Oh good grief! There were two different posters: One who lumped NNAT/CogAT/GBRS, and one who stated that gifted children who underachieve still belong in AAP. I stand by my statement that kids who are underachieving but gifted "need AAP" the most. As soon as a child is verified as gifted, the NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS should be meaningless. It doesn't matter whether that child is underachieving or not. That child still clearly belongs in an AAP classroom. I'm not sure what the committee is thinking when they're rejecting kids with 130+ WISC.

A gifted level IQ with mediocre screening test scores and a poor GBRS (or poor grades, poor DRA, etc.) could indicate a kid who is completely bored and disengaged with the gen ed classroom. It could mean that the child is somehow failing to meet his or her potential. It still doesn't matter, and the child belongs in a gifted program due to actually being gifted.