Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the qualifications for an AART? Do they have sufficient training in developmental psychology, or cognitive science? I would assume that they have to hold a degree in one or more technical areas, since they are responsible for teaching "critical reasoning" and assessing the students on their Gifted Behavior - is there a place where any of this is published? It seems that the AAP program is growing at a much faster pace than they would be able to hire reasonably qualified individuals.

Given the low salaries throughout FCPS compared to other systems in the county, parents whose schools actually have AARTs, should be happy they get the people they get.

Respectfully, the AART's role is heavy on administration and less w. working with students so low salary isn't what make parents grateful - it's that not every school has a part time AART and that should be appreciated.

And an earnest desire to have the AART more student facing and less pushing paperwork

The AART's role (link to PDF slide presentation):
http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/RoleofAART.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the qualifications for an AART? Do they have sufficient training in developmental psychology, or cognitive science? I would assume that they have to hold a degree in one or more technical areas, since they are responsible for teaching "critical reasoning" and assessing the students on their Gifted Behavior - is there a place where any of this is published? It seems that the AAP program is growing at a much faster pace than they would be able to hire reasonably qualified individuals.

Given the low salaries throughout FCPS compared to other systems in the county, parents whose schools actually have AARTs, should be happy they get the people they get.

Respectfully, the AART's role is heavy on administration and less w. working with students so low salary isn't what make parents grateful - it's that not every school has a part time AART and that should be appreciated.

And an earnest desire to have the AART more student facing and less pushing paperwork

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the qualifications for an AART? Do they have sufficient training in developmental psychology, or cognitive science? I would assume that they have to hold a degree in one or more technical areas, since they are responsible for teaching "critical reasoning" and assessing the students on their Gifted Behavior - is there a place where any of this is published? It seems that the AAP program is growing at a much faster pace than they would be able to hire reasonably qualified individuals.

Given the low salaries throughout FCPS compared to other systems in the county, parents whose schools actually have AARTs, should be happy they get the people they get.

Respectfully, the AART's role is heavy on administration and less w. working with students so low salary isn't what make parents grateful - it's that not every school has a part time AART and that should be appreciated.

Anonymous wrote:What are the qualifications for an AART? Do they have sufficient training in developmental psychology, or cognitive science? I would assume that they have to hold a degree in one or more technical areas, since they are responsible for teaching "critical reasoning" and assessing the students on their Gifted Behavior - is there a place where any of this is published? It seems that the AAP program is growing at a much faster pace than they would be able to hire reasonably qualified individuals.

Given the low salaries throughout FCPS compared to other systems in the county, parents whose schools actually have AARTs, should be happy they get the people they get.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

And they are responsible for rating our children on their abilities...ugh.

This post and the lack of objective, well-trained qualifications mentioned on this thread are yet another glimpse into the bizarre, political and poorly designed ways our schools are determining how to educate our children. It baffles me.

Our AART is supposed to lead the students in critical thinking exercises, but I have not seen very good examples. I noticed some errors in my kid's AAP file (I asked for it after we got in), and asked about them. She said that the reason she had him listed as being of "more than one ethnic background" is because he had had the tag "Non-Hispanic". She didn't seem to think there was a mistake on her part.

This is nothing that he/she can control. AARTs don't have access to change these items in the information system. All the student background info (DOB, Ethnicity, address, etc) are pulled straight from the student information sysem. The AART didn't have any control over what was labeled there. That is something to take up with the Student information person in the front office. There is not a mistake the AART can make there due to the fact that they can't access any of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

Curious to know what is the clinical significance? My kid's GAI is 139 and FSIQ is 130 due to low processing speed. Does this mean that GAI is more accurate than FSIQ?

No, it means that your son MAY have extreme anxiety, ADHD or possibly something else going on to account for the larger spread between the two numbers. He may not, but he may. The GAI won't be considered, however, by the committee unless possibly he is diagnosed with something AND treatment starts thereafter (i.e. he took WISC, saw discrepancy, was diagnosed, started treatment, can't redo WISC b/c hasn't been a year, but you believe that explains the lower processing speed.)

The psychologist that tested my kid said it is the low processing speed that causes the gap between GAI and FSIQ. All the sub test scores are at the very superior range (99%), but the processing speed is only at the average range.

The processing speed is not weighted nearly as other sections, but without a diagnosis and treatment, you'd be simply trying to ask the committee to accept a higher full scale score in lieu of the documented one. I'm sure you can see how unrealistic that is.

I wasn't asking about the AAP selection and the committee's view. I was just curious why so many PP suggested clinical significance if gap between GAI and FSIQ is at least 7 points. I want to use the WISC result to understand the strength and weaknesses of my kid, purely for parenting purposes.

It can provide a general guide for you as to his "weaknesses" but without more information, there isn't much you can do with it.

Are you a psychologist? Just wondering because I wouldn't want to send any gifted kid to you for testing, if so. You seem to be pretty unaware of the commonality of lower processing speeds in gifted child tests.

"Commonality?" No, that isn't so. (You make it sound that it is common place - frequent, much of the time - that a kid who is gifted will have lower processing speeds. is it POSSIBLE? Yes, absolutely. There are many children who don't have lower processing speeds. There are SOME who have lower processing speeds and it means something and SOME that have lower processing speeds and it doesn't really mean anything (as the child is successful and without struggles so even if there is an issue, the child can compensate for it.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

Curious to know what is the clinical significance? My kid's GAI is 139 and FSIQ is 130 due to low processing speed. Does this mean that GAI is more accurate than FSIQ?

No, it means that your son MAY have extreme anxiety, ADHD or possibly something else going on to account for the larger spread between the two numbers. He may not, but he may. The GAI won't be considered, however, by the committee unless possibly he is diagnosed with something AND treatment starts thereafter (i.e. he took WISC, saw discrepancy, was diagnosed, started treatment, can't redo WISC b/c hasn't been a year, but you believe that explains the lower processing speed.)

The psychologist that tested my kid said it is the low processing speed that causes the gap between GAI and FSIQ. All the sub test scores are at the very superior range (99%), but the processing speed is only at the average range.

The processing speed is not weighted nearly as other sections, but without a diagnosis and treatment, you'd be simply trying to ask the committee to accept a higher full scale score in lieu of the documented one. I'm sure you can see how unrealistic that is.

I wasn't asking about the AAP selection and the committee's view. I was just curious why so many PP suggested clinical significance if gap between GAI and FSIQ is at least 7 points. I want to use the WISC result to understand the strength and weaknesses of my kid, purely for parenting purposes.

It can provide a general guide for you as to his "weaknesses" but without more information, there isn't much you can do with it.

Are you a psychologist? Just wondering because I wouldn't want to send any gifted kid to you for testing, if so. You seem to be pretty unaware of the commonality of lower processing speeds in gifted child tests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

And they are responsible for rating our children on their abilities...ugh.

This post and the lack of objective, well-trained qualifications mentioned on this thread are yet another glimpse into the bizarre, political and poorly designed ways our schools are determining how to educate our children. It baffles me.

Our AART is supposed to lead the students in critical thinking exercises, but I have not seen very good examples. I noticed some errors in my kid's AAP file (I asked for it after we got in), and asked about them. She said that the reason she had him listed as being of "more than one ethnic background" is because he had had the tag "Non-Hispanic". She didn't seem to think there was a mistake on her part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

Curious to know what is the clinical significance? My kid's GAI is 139 and FSIQ is 130 due to low processing speed. Does this mean that GAI is more accurate than FSIQ?

No, it means that your son MAY have extreme anxiety, ADHD or possibly something else going on to account for the larger spread between the two numbers. He may not, but he may. The GAI won't be considered, however, by the committee unless possibly he is diagnosed with something AND treatment starts thereafter (i.e. he took WISC, saw discrepancy, was diagnosed, started treatment, can't redo WISC b/c hasn't been a year, but you believe that explains the lower processing speed.)

The psychologist that tested my kid said it is the low processing speed that causes the gap between GAI and FSIQ. All the sub test scores are at the very superior range (99%), but the processing speed is only at the average range.

The processing speed is not weighted nearly as other sections, but without a diagnosis and treatment, you'd be simply trying to ask the committee to accept a higher full scale score in lieu of the documented one. I'm sure you can see how unrealistic that is.

I wasn't asking about the AAP selection and the committee's view. I was just curious why so many PP suggested clinical significance if gap between GAI and FSIQ is at least 7 points. I want to use the WISC result to understand the strength and weaknesses of my kid, purely for parenting purposes.

It can provide a general guide for you as to his "weaknesses" but without more information, there isn't much you can do with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

Curious to know what is the clinical significance? My kid's GAI is 139 and FSIQ is 130 due to low processing speed. Does this mean that GAI is more accurate than FSIQ?

No, it means that your son MAY have extreme anxiety, ADHD or possibly something else going on to account for the larger spread between the two numbers. He may not, but he may. The GAI won't be considered, however, by the committee unless possibly he is diagnosed with something AND treatment starts thereafter (i.e. he took WISC, saw discrepancy, was diagnosed, started treatment, can't redo WISC b/c hasn't been a year, but you believe that explains the lower processing speed.)

The psychologist that tested my kid said it is the low processing speed that causes the gap between GAI and FSIQ. All the sub test scores are at the very superior range (99%), but the processing speed is only at the average range.

The processing speed is not weighted nearly as other sections, but without a diagnosis and treatment, you'd be simply trying to ask the committee to accept a higher full scale score in lieu of the documented one. I'm sure you can see how unrealistic that is.

I wasn't asking about the AAP selection and the committee's view. I was just curious why so many PP suggested clinical significance if gap between GAI and FSIQ is at least 7 points. I want to use the WISC result to understand the strength and weaknesses of my kid, purely for parenting purposes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

Curious to know what is the clinical significance? My kid's GAI is 139 and FSIQ is 130 due to low processing speed. Does this mean that GAI is more accurate than FSIQ?

No, it means that your son MAY have extreme anxiety, ADHD or possibly something else going on to account for the larger spread between the two numbers. He may not, but he may. The GAI won't be considered, however, by the committee unless possibly he is diagnosed with something AND treatment starts thereafter (i.e. he took WISC, saw discrepancy, was diagnosed, started treatment, can't redo WISC b/c hasn't been a year, but you believe that explains the lower processing speed.)

The psychologist that tested my kid said it is the low processing speed that causes the gap between GAI and FSIQ. All the sub test scores are at the very superior range (99%), but the processing speed is only at the average range.

The processing speed is not weighted nearly [u]as other sections, but without a diagnosis and treatment, you'd be simply trying to ask the committee to accept a higher full scale score in lieu of the documented one. I'm sure you can see how unrealistic that is.

Nearly as heavily...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

Curious to know what is the clinical significance? My kid's GAI is 139 and FSIQ is 130 due to low processing speed. Does this mean that GAI is more accurate than FSIQ?

No, it means that your son MAY have extreme anxiety, ADHD or possibly something else going on to account for the larger spread between the two numbers. He may not, but he may. The GAI won't be considered, however, by the committee unless possibly he is diagnosed with something AND treatment starts thereafter (i.e. he took WISC, saw discrepancy, was diagnosed, started treatment, can't redo WISC b/c hasn't been a year, but you believe that explains the lower processing speed.)

The psychologist that tested my kid said it is the low processing speed that causes the gap between GAI and FSIQ. All the sub test scores are at the very superior range (99%), but the processing speed is only at the average range.

The processing speed is not weighted nearly as other sections, but without a diagnosis and treatment, you'd be simply trying to ask the committee to accept a higher full scale score in lieu of the documented one. I'm sure you can see how unrealistic that is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

Curious to know what is the clinical significance? My kid's GAI is 139 and FSIQ is 130 due to low processing speed. Does this mean that GAI is more accurate than FSIQ?

No, it means that your son MAY have extreme anxiety, ADHD or possibly something else going on to account for the larger spread between the two numbers. He may not, but he may. The GAI won't be considered, however, by the committee unless possibly he is diagnosed with something AND treatment starts thereafter (i.e. he took WISC, saw discrepancy, was diagnosed, started treatment, can't redo WISC b/c hasn't been a year, but you believe that explains the lower processing speed.)

The psychologist that tested my kid said it is the low processing speed that causes the gap between GAI and FSIQ. All the sub test scores are at the very superior range (99%), but the processing speed is only at the average range.

Anonymous wrote:What are the qualifications for an AART? Do they have sufficient training in developmental psychology, or cognitive science? I would assume that they have to hold a degree in one or more technical areas, since they are responsible for teaching "critical reasoning" and assessing the students on their Gifted Behavior - is there a place where any of this is published? It seems that the AAP program is growing at a much faster pace than they would be able to hire reasonably qualified individuals.

I was an AART.
You have to be a certified teacher (usually elementary ed for ES) and you have to have 4 classes in gifted education.

Instead of the classes, you can take a TON of workshops to get "Fairfax" certified, which is actually more specific to FCPS, and although I am no longer in the role, I can tell you is better than what is offered through UVA, JMU or William and Mary.

They have the best in the field as their employees, and bring in experts to train teachers.

In some schools, other professionals have the state gifted certification or are Fairfax certified.

It is rigorous, and valuable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here,

In my opinion, "the commitee" is made to avoid blaming game for the teacher. Principal and aart would not really know every kids in the 2nd grade.
I think GBRS is mainly the teacher's subjective opinion but s/he wouldn't want to be blamed when parents complain.

Also, our school's AART didn't even know what "GAI score" from WISC-4 was. I had to explain to her!

The GAI is often not used clinically, typically disregarded by the AAP committee, and is insignificant unless there is more than a 7 point difference between the full scale and the GAI. So if it is typically disregarded by the AAP committee, I see no reason why the AART "needs" to know about it.

The GIA is so commonly used. It isn't exactly necessary for many cases, but it is not uncommon with regard to the gifted population. Especially 2E kids. They AART should be well aware of the GIA. It is very reliable and scientifically sound.

Not true. There needs to be at least a 7 point different b/w the two to have any clinical significance. Also, the AAP committee does NOT generally use the GAI as it considers it the massaging of the true data.

I wouldn't be surprised if the AART knows exactly what the GAI is and simply did not want to get into a discussion about it, knowing how limited its usefulness is.