Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe this "holistic" approach is why AAP standards have gone down so much. It is ridiculous that someone with a 135 FSIQ wouldn't get in. I can understand why GBRS can be used to support kids who may have had a bad testing day but who have consistently shown a very strong work ethic or strong analytical skills... but to exclude kids who make the pool or are above cutoff scores in the WISC? I don't get why anyone thinks this is a good system.
It’s not a good system.
It should be 20% black kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's not that they are excluded. It's that they do not need the program and are better in the general education classes. The program has always been like this, this isn't new.
- parent of one kid who needs the program and one who doesn't.
That is some serious BS. You're deluding yourself if you think that most of the kids in AAP need the program and couldn't be educated in a regular classroom. Most school systems across the country can educate the kids who are somewhat advanced and have IQs around 120 in a regular classroom. What makes FCPS so special that somewhat bright, somewhat advanced kids are not educable without a special program?
A kid with a 135 IQ is in the 99th percentile and is gifted by any definition. If that kid is not exhibiting "gifted traits" in a regular classroom or is not advanced, that kid actually needs a gifted program more than your somewhat above average, somewhat bright, organized people pleaser with the high GBRS. The 135 IQ, low GBRS kid is demonstrating that the general education classroom is a terrible fit for that kid, while the somewhat advanced, high GBRS kid is demonstrating that they will bloom wherever they're planted.
- Parent of one kid who doesn't need AAP, got in anyway, and is indistinguishable from all of the other kids in AAP (who also don't need AAP despite their parents' delusions), and one kid who needs AAP but effectively didn't receive it due to the watering down of the program.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is no guaranteed score, as it is possible to even game a WISC. The test becomes unreliable if taken multiple times in a short period. But, I have seen people do that. They go for multiple tests until the score improves to the 132 number. For some, the cost of the WISC is not significant.
If you go to different providers, the retaking may not be known....
On the down side, a low energy day can result in a lower score, even on the WISC.
The long term observations are important and are harder to game.
Then any subsequent test is invalid and they are cheating. There should be a minimum of 3 years between tests and no psychologist will give back to back tests unless the parent is lying and doesn’t tell them.
Anonymous wrote:There is no guaranteed score, as it is possible to even game a WISC. The test becomes unreliable if taken multiple times in a short period. But, I have seen people do that. They go for multiple tests until the score improves to the 132 number. For some, the cost of the WISC is not significant.
If you go to different providers, the retaking may not be known....
On the down side, a low energy day can result in a lower score, even on the WISC.
The long term observations are important and are harder to game.
Anonymous wrote:It's a long standing pattern. You can see it going back decades.
Anonymous wrote:
It's a long standing pattern. There are always the outlier kids who are clearly gifted and not admitted. Why? Because those kids are great kids who will be successful anywhere and everywhere. Other gifted kids might not be. This is my theory, you may have a different one.
Anonymous wrote:There is no guaranteed score, as it is possible to even game a WISC. The test becomes unreliable if taken multiple times in a short period. But, I have seen people do that. They go for multiple tests until the score improves to the 132 number. For some, the cost of the WISC is not significant.
If you go to different providers, the retaking may not be known....
On the down side, a low energy day can result in a lower score, even on the WISC.
The long term observations are important and are harder to game.