AAP Equity report

[Anonymous]

^^ and by the way the school was not testing my 2E kids because they are not below grade level, so I had to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So where are all the parents of lower-scoring admits and why aren’t they posting here?

They're all in denial about their kids' abilities. Everyone I know with a kid who got in via parent referral is convinced that the kid rightfully should have scored 98% or higher, but is a poor test taker or had a bad day. They're hardly going to post scores that they don't think are valid for their child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they get rid of parent referrals what happens if you have a WISC? Can you submit that or not? For example, my current second who was found eligible was not “in pool” on NNAT or CogAT but would have been in “pool” if WISC was considered.

I find this would mainly adversely impact students with disabilities if it’s not allowed.

Are WISCs generally filed with the schools as part of the IEP or 504 process? If they eliminated parent referrals, but kept teacher referrals, I would hope that the special ed teachers would be able to refer any kids they work with who have gifted level FSIQ. Not allowing WISCs would hurt 2e kids quite a bit in the admissions process.

[Anonymous]

I have a kid who scored pretty low and he is not super smart. Bright-average. His older siblings both went to the center and our base school is almost Title 1 and has very little to offer academics-wise. I was happy to get him in but yeah, he definitely doesn't need to be there. We referred and hoped for the best. Oh, we got a WISC and didn't use it because it was lower than his COGAT and NNAT scores.

[Anonymous]

Why is this called an "Equity" report. Gifted Education is based on the assumption that everyone is not of equal intelligence, equal ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this called an "Equity" report. Gifted Education is based on the assumption that everyone is not of equal intelligence, equal ability.

Because it is assumed that kids of all races are gifted but some are undiscovered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who scored pretty low and he is not super smart. Bright-average. His older siblings both went to the center and our base school is almost Title 1 and has very little to offer academics-wise. I was happy to get him in but yeah, he definitely doesn't need to be there. We referred and hoped for the best. Oh, we got a WISC and didn't use it because it was lower than his COGAT and NNAT scores.

One of the points in the report is that Level III services need to be strengthened, so the bright average kids can access the appropriate level. Right now, the kids who ought to be LIII get pushed into LIV, or they end up receiving services that are LIII in name only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who scored pretty low and he is not super smart. Bright-average. His older siblings both went to the center and our base school is almost Title 1 and has very little to offer academics-wise. I was happy to get him in but yeah, he definitely doesn't need to be there. We referred and hoped for the best. Oh, we got a WISC and didn't use it because it was lower than his COGAT and NNAT scores.

We had a similar experience. I’ve said this before, but I suspect the committee recognizes that Title I schools are less able to meet the needs of even bright-average kids and, as a result, applies less stringent admissions standards to students from those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who scored pretty low and he is not super smart. Bright-average. His older siblings both went to the center and our base school is almost Title 1 and has very little to offer academics-wise. I was happy to get him in but yeah, he definitely doesn't need to be there. We referred and hoped for the best. Oh, we got a WISC and didn't use it because it was lower than his COGAT and NNAT scores.

We had a similar experience. I’ve said this before, but I suspect the committee recognizes that Title I schools are less able to meet the needs of even bright-average kids and, as a result, applies less stringent admissions standards to students from those schools.

Interesting. I'm one of the people who has been complaining that my kid's center has been watered down by too many above average kids, and my gifted kid is not being challenged at all. The feeders to the center are mostly Title I schools. Also, at my base school (Title I), around 30 kids per year are identified as Level IV, and only 5 or 6 after that are identified as LIII out of around 140 kids per grade. Statistically, this suggests that the majority of the kids who ought to be LIII are being identified as LIV at this Title I school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who scored pretty low and he is not super smart. Bright-average. His older siblings both went to the center and our base school is almost Title 1 and has very little to offer academics-wise. I was happy to get him in but yeah, he definitely doesn't need to be there. We referred and hoped for the best. Oh, we got a WISC and didn't use it because it was lower than his COGAT and NNAT scores.

We had a similar experience. I’ve said this before, but I suspect the committee recognizes that Title I schools are less able to meet the needs of even bright-average kids and, as a result, applies less stringent admissions standards to students from those schools.

Interesting. I'm one of the people who has been complaining that my kid's center has been watered down by too many above average kids, and my gifted kid is not being challenged at all. The feeders to the center are mostly Title I schools. Also, at my base school (Title I), around 30 kids per year are identified as Level IV, and only 5 or 6 after that are identified as LIII out of around 140 kids per grade. Statistically, this suggests that the majority of the kids who ought to be LIII are being identified as LIV at this Title I school.

I also should add that I don't at all blame parents for pushing their bright average kids into the program when the LII and LIII services are inadequate. Fixing LII and LIII needs to happen before they can alter the LIV admission process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who scored pretty low and he is not super smart. Bright-average. His older siblings both went to the center and our base school is almost Title 1 and has very little to offer academics-wise. I was happy to get him in but yeah, he definitely doesn't need to be there. We referred and hoped for the best. Oh, we got a WISC and didn't use it because it was lower than his COGAT and NNAT scores.

We had a similar experience. I’ve said this before, but I suspect the committee recognizes that Title I schools are less able to meet the needs of even bright-average kids and, as a result, applies less stringent admissions standards to students from those schools.

Interesting. I'm one of the people who has been complaining that my kid's center has been watered down by too many above average kids, and my gifted kid is not being challenged at all. The feeders to the center are mostly Title I schools. Also, at my base school (Title I), around 30 kids per year are identified as Level IV, and only 5 or 6 after that are identified as LIII out of around 140 kids per grade. Statistically, this suggests that the majority of the kids who ought to be LIII are being identified as LIV at this Title I school.

17:20 here. Our base school (not quite Title 1 but close) only sends 5 or so kids to the center each year. Only one child was in-pool for the whole grade last year, the rest were parent referrals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who scored pretty low and he is not super smart. Bright-average. His older siblings both went to the center and our base school is almost Title 1 and has very little to offer academics-wise. I was happy to get him in but yeah, he definitely doesn't need to be there. We referred and hoped for the best. Oh, we got a WISC and didn't use it because it was lower than his COGAT and NNAT scores.

We had a similar experience. I’ve said this before, but I suspect the committee recognizes that Title I schools are less able to meet the needs of even bright-average kids and, as a result, applies less stringent admissions standards to students from those schools.

Interesting. I'm one of the people who has been complaining that my kid's center has been watered down by too many above average kids, and my gifted kid is not being challenged at all. The feeders to the center are mostly Title I schools. Also, at my base school (Title I), around 30 kids per year are identified as Level IV, and only 5 or 6 after that are identified as LIII out of around 140 kids per grade. Statistically, this suggests that the majority of the kids who ought to be LIII are being identified as LIV at this Title I school.

I also should add that I don't at all blame parents for pushing their bright average kids into the program when the LII and LIII services are inadequate. Fixing LII and LIII needs to happen before they can alter the LIV admission process.

I would be satisfied if they just fixed general ed! The general education and standards have been watered down too much. An average range child should be challenged by an average classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who scored pretty low and he is not super smart. Bright-average. His older siblings both went to the center and our base school is almost Title 1 and has very little to offer academics-wise. I was happy to get him in but yeah, he definitely doesn't need to be there. We referred and hoped for the best. Oh, we got a WISC and didn't use it because it was lower than his COGAT and NNAT scores.

We had a similar experience. I’ve said this before, but I suspect the committee recognizes that Title I schools are less able to meet the needs of even bright-average kids and, as a result, applies less stringent admissions standards to students from those schools.

Interesting. I'm one of the people who has been complaining that my kid's center has been watered down by too many above average kids, and my gifted kid is not being challenged at all. The feeders to the center are mostly Title I schools. Also, at my base school (Title I), around 30 kids per year are identified as Level IV, and only 5 or 6 after that are identified as LIII out of around 140 kids per grade. Statistically, this suggests that the majority of the kids who ought to be LIII are being identified as LIV at this Title I school.

I also should add that I don't at all blame parents for pushing their bright average kids into the program when the LII and LIII services are inadequate. Fixing LII and LIII needs to happen before they can alter the LIV admission process.

Agree about the need to improve LII and LIII services, but I think part of the problem in Title I schools is also about peer groups. Kids need to be challenged not just by the curriculum, but also by their peers. In schools where the majority of a student’s peers are ESOL or below grade level, even good LII/LIII may not be sufficient to meet a bright child’s needs.

[Anonymous]

GMAB. Title I schools still have enough above average kids to form a peer group. If you think the majority of kids are below grade level or below average at any FCPS school, name the school. Maybe kids with an IQ above 125 would struggle to find a peer group in a Title I school, but there are plenty of kids in the 110-125 IQ range in Title I schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GMAB. Title I schools still have enough above average kids to form a peer group. If you think the majority of kids are below grade level or below average at any FCPS school, name the school. Maybe kids with an IQ above 125 would struggle to find a peer group in a Title I school, but there are plenty of kids in the 110-125 IQ range in Title I schools.

Agree with this. I'll also add that a lot of these schools, especially if they're on the cusp of Title I, have zero reason to get rid of the kids who are in the 115-130 range. Unless the parents push it, those kids aren't going to a center. If there's no LLIV, they aren't getting that, either. They may also not get much in the way of Level III services, which is a shame because kids in other parts of the county who are in the same boat with scores are getting a lot more.