Anonymous wrote:I have seen a friend's letter that explained a child's weakness and why that made AAP necessary for that child and it was successful, so it probably depends on the individual.

Yes, it does depend on the individual. My son was diagnosed with ADHD between the NNAT (1st grade) and CogAT (2nd grade) so we included that explanation "about a child's weakness" in our letter. He was found eligible in the first round.

I have seen a friend's letter that explained a child's weakness and why that made AAP necessary for that child and it was successful, so it probably depends on the individual.

P.S. Your query about "won't the committee see the low GBRS and wonder why it happened . . ." The appeals committee is looking at hundreds of appeals that are there BECAUSE the GBRS is low. That is why they are there. You don't need to address it. You need to overcome it with new material that hightlights your child's strengths.

My kid has ADHD, and Dr. Dahlgren told us we had to "check the box" on the form to let them know, but other than that, she advised against any discussion of it in our letter or parent information. The take away: Resist any temptation to explain away weaknesses or overtly challenge the GBRS (which amounts to an attack on the local committee that prepared the score). Your job is to highlight your child's strengths. If you can't resist addressing perceived weaknesses, then your child's chances on appeal will suffer.

The only time a weakness should be mentioned is if it is the result of a documentable LD. For example, if the child is mild autism (aspergers) and does not present well....

Use the language of the GBRS with Commentary form and strictly speak to strengths. Do not try to "explain some weaknesses" unless you are trying to highlight them and therefore increase your child's chances of being found not eligible.

What about explaining some of the weaknesses? Should the focus be only on strengths? For instance, DC does great in tests, but takes time to complete assignments and isn't really a forceful presence in the classroom. Should this be addressed somehow or not mentioned at all? Won't the committee see the lower GBRS and wonder why it happened, if the kid did well in tests? Should age be discussed at all (DC is youngest in class) as a possible explanation?

When we did this two years ago, our psychologist (yes, Diana Dahlgren again) told us NOT to even mention the low GBRS in our appeal letter -- it just draws attention to it. Say great things about your child in the letter, but NEVER mention the GBRS and whatever you do, NEVER attack the reasoning provided in the GBRS (appearing to attack the AART, the teacher). Dr. Dahlgren said the best thing we could do (and it worked with a mere Full Scale WISC of 129, two years ago, this year who knows) is just LET THE SCORES speak for themselves. Good luck.

I have never appealed but I would think focusing on DC's strengths would be more apt to help. Let the strong WISC scores speak for themselves. Attacking the AART for a supposedly low GBRS is likely not the proper approach.

If you were successful in overcoming a low GBRS on appeal, what did you include in your letter (and what additional material did you submit) beyond a strong WISC? Please share some good arguments. Should the tone be strong or pleading? Focusing on why GBRS was low or on DC's strengths, as demonstrated by test scores, WISC and other activities? Any guidance?

I would have asked our AART all these questions (as I think it's their job to provide such guidance) but we are dealing with a very negative AART and had no luck getting anything out of her, other than a cold "scores do not mean much in my opinion, your child did not raise his hand enough to get a better GBRS", end of discussion...