Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. My child scored 98% and did so with no sort of prepping. Was I surprised..not really she already seemed fairly verbal and could do some puzzles pretty darn fast. Now years later..she is very stupidious and gets excellent grades. So I think by and large the WPSSI was a good predictor when you are talking kids with high scores. Kids with low scores though may not necessarily be underachievers later on..I think there are probably of a lot of kids in that group who may not have been mature enough (at the time) to focus etc etc and fast forward years..they are doing great because they have grown up. And yes I know the test factors in for age but sorry maybe not enough. So I think the schools are cautious with the low scoring kids because they are not sure which way it will go..so maybe they have a lower cutoff to sort of CYA.ie they don't need to see a 95 plus but can't be below say a 80. Also..think they look for consistency to make sure there isn't a learning issue they can't handle in one of the subsets.

Love the word stupidious. Stupid and studious?

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. My child scored 98% and did so with no sort of prepping. Was I surprised..not really she already seemed fairly verbal and could do some puzzles pretty darn fast. Now years later..she is very stupidious and gets excellent grades. So I think by and large the WPSSI was a good predictor when you are talking kids with high scores. Kids with low scores though may not necessarily be underachievers later on..I think there are probably of a lot of kids in that group who may not have been mature enough (at the time) to focus etc etc and fast forward years..they are doing great because they have grown up. And yes I know the test factors in for age but sorry maybe not enough. So I think the schools are cautious with the low scoring kids because they are not sure which way it will go..so maybe they have a lower cutoff to sort of CYA.ie they don't need to see a 95 plus but can't be below say a 80. Also..think they look for consistency to make sure there isn't a learning issue they can't handle in one of the subsets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Fast forward 3 years and that high WPPSI scoring child is now struggling in 2nd or 3rd grade ...

This is now my child. WPPSI was 96%. Struggling now in 2nd grade with Math and reading.

I'm curious, so I'm wondering if you'll expand a little bit.

1. How serious is the struggle? Is your child struggling so much that counseling out is on the horizon? Or are you just describing normal struggles that many kids may have?

2. When your child got the 96th percentile WPPSI score, did the score strike you as surprisingly high? (Ex: "Gee, I knew my child was no dummy, but 96%?!? That's surprising! I pictured my child as more of a general above-average kid based on comparisons to other children I know.") Or instead was the 96% score fully consistent with other indications of very high intelligence? (Ex: Glowing remarks from teachers and other parents about your child's obvious smarts, your own objective sense of your child's abilities compared to peers, etc.)

Thanks in advance for the extra context!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Fast forward 3 years and that high WPPSI scoring child is now struggling in 2nd or 3rd grade ...

This is now my child. WPPSI was 96%. Struggling now in 2nd grade with Math and reading.

Anonymous wrote:In a lot of ways, we should all be well cautioned by a child's WPPSI scores, whether high, low or in the middle, at ages 4 and 5. The test is such poor, poor predictor of future academic success and does nothing to predict a child's motivation towards academics. Parents get super excited when their little Johnny gets into Sidwell for K, or super devastated when he doesn't. Fast forward 3 years and that high WPPSI scoring child is now struggling in 2nd or 3rd grade (or just not motivated to love, love, love academics), OR that low scoring child has shown himself to be super bright, motivated and ready for more academic rigor and probably should have been at a school like Sidwell in the first place, as opposed to being rejected for low scores. As parents, we should be take stock and inventory, every year, as to whether or not our child is thriving in the environment in which they are in. You may think you have it all figured out in K, but the child is just too young at point to know for sure. Adjust course if you need to -- in either direction!

Anonymous wrote:In a lot of ways, we should all be well cautioned by a child's WPPSI scores, whether high, low or in the middle, at ages 4 and 5. The test is such poor, poor predictor of future academic success and does nothing to predict a child's motivation towards academics. Parents get super excited when their little Johnny gets into Sidwell for K, or super devastated when he doesn't. Fast forward 3 years and that high WPPSI scoring child is now struggling in 2nd or 3rd grade (or just not motivated to love, love, love academics), OR that low scoring child has shown himself to be super bright, motivated and ready for more academic rigor and probably should have been at a school like Sidwell in the first place, as opposed to being rejected for low scores. As parents, we should be take stock and inventory, every year, as to whether or not our child is thriving in the environment in which they are in. You may think you have it all figured out in K, but the child is just too young at point to know for sure. Adjust course if you need to -- in either direction!

Anonymous wrote:In a lot of ways, we should all be well cautioned by a child's WPPSI scores, whether high, low or in the middle, at ages 4 and 5. The test is such poor, poor predictor of future academic success and does nothing to predict a child's motivation towards academics. Parents get super excited when their little Johnny gets into Sidwell for K, or super devastated when he doesn't. Fast forward 3 years and that high WPPSI scoring child is now struggling in 2nd or 3rd grade (or just not motivated to love, love, love academics), OR that low scoring child has shown himself to be super bright, motivated and ready for more academic rigor and probably should have been at a school like Sidwell in the first place, as opposed to being rejected for low scores. As parents, we should be take stock and inventory, every year, as to whether or not our child is thriving in the environment in which they are in. You may think you have it all figured out in K, but the child is just too young at point to know for sure. Adjust course if you need to -- in either direction!

Anonymous wrote:My oldest child was counseled out of a "big 3" school. Thrived socially but basically had all Cs in 9th grade... school essentially said work would only get harder, not the best fit. Could stay if needed but there were better schools out there for him... so true. At a different private now - it is less rigorous, but he is doing so much better and actually feels like its a much better academic fit. misses old friends. Still have a younger DS at the school and he is doing a -ok. So yes, I do think the school had the best interest at heart. I know they did not fill his spot the next year (i.e. no one was new in 10th grade). I think they just thought he could do better elsewhere and it would be a hell of a struggle to get to graduation. DH and I were angry when it happened but it really was not a personal thing, we are happy now that DS is doing better. Also need to think about college - where is a kid with all Cs and maybe lower(eek, dont even want to think about how bad jr year would have been at his old school) going to apply to college? DS is applying to decent to good colleges from his current school where he is making all As and Bs - think UVM, Connecticut College, St. Lawrence, Muhlenberg... I doubt he would have a shot at these as the lowest ranked kid at his old school.

Anonymous wrote:I was under the impression they provide a benefit to society by educating those from Title I schools based on their federal grants issued by the Department of Education? Why are they exempt from paying property taxes if they do not provide any services to the public school community except for renting out facilities? Why do they receive charitable donations from parents whose students are on financial aid and well above the poverty line? Why do so many proponents of public schools send their children to private schools? I am very interested in the preferential tax treatment of these 501(c)3 that discriminate on the basis of learning disabilities but, all have access ramps for those with physical challenges? Please enlighten me?

Anonymous wrote:I was under the impression they provide a benefit to society by educating those from Title I schools based on their federal grants issued by the Department of Education? Why are they exempt from paying property taxes if they do not provide any services to the public school community except for renting out facilities? Why do they receive charitable donations from parents whose students are on financial aid and well above the poverty line? Why do so many proponents of public schools send their children to private schools? I am very interested in the preferential tax treatment of these 501(c)3 that discriminate on the basis of learning disabilities but, all have access ramps for those with physical challenges? Please enlighten me?