Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

That's ridiculous.

How was gbrs?

It shouldn't matter. WISC of 136 is well above the gifted threshold. If the teacher isn't "seeing giftedness" in a child who is objectively gifted, then it probably speaks more to the teacher's biases or lack of understanding of giftedness than it does to the child's ability.

This is a no-brainer. Of all the blessed teachers in our County, we had to get the nut case who couldn't tell the gifted kid from the mediocre kid who was carefully prepped.

It’s been argued before that the quiet or shy kids are at a big disadvantage for GBRS.

If the kid has the test scores, grades, high DRA, and above grade math, the teacher’s rating shouldn’t matter at all. I have no issues with using subjective ratings like GBRS to let kids into AAP, but it shouldn’t be used to keep kids out of the program.

No one is saying nongifted kids display gifted qualities and gifted kids don’t. I think the issue is that people pleasing, bright outgoing kids may be more memorable in a good way.

Anonymous wrote:If gifted kids are not displaying “gifted characteristics”, and non-gifted kids are, then the characteristics aren’t “gifted characteristics.” Maybe it should be the bright, motivated, pleaser rating system instead.

It isn’t about that. It’s about the comments kids make and questions they ask. It’s about what they write and how they see and interpret information. It’s showing out of the box thinking that stands out from other kids. Here’s an example I once heard a friend tell me: a kindergarten class is asked after a career presentation on teachers, what do you think is needed in order to be a teacher? Responses that are correct and typical would be: kids, classroom, school, desks, books, chairs, etc. Next would be on an education because it is something the kids don’t see everyday and the kid needs to think about information not immediately available and assimilate it. An amazing answer would be money - and when asked why, the kid says because the county needs money in order to pay the teacher’s salary. According to my friend, this is an actual example. She told me about this about 6 years ago. Answers like that are easy to remember because they are so unique.

If gifted kids are not displaying “gifted characteristics”, and non-gifted kids are, then the characteristics aren’t “gifted characteristics.” Maybe it should be the bright, motivated, pleaser rating system instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your kid is not obviously gifted to the teacher and your opinion matters little In the matter.

This is the problem with GBRS. A child who has an IQ above 130 is by definition gifted. The teacher's opinion doesn't change that, and if teachers are failing to identify giftedness in kids who are technically gifted, then the teacher's opinions mean next to nothing.

Not really. You can be gifted but not display gifted characteristics.

NNAT 139, CoGAT 140 (130/133/139 V/Q/N) GBRS 2C/2F with great comments. DRA 34. rejected. Makes no sense. We are appealing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

That's ridiculous.

How was gbrs?

It shouldn't matter. WISC of 136 is well above the gifted threshold. If the teacher isn't "seeing giftedness" in a child who is objectively gifted, then it probably speaks more to the teacher's biases or lack of understanding of giftedness than it does to the child's ability.

I agree that a WISC of 136 should be in. But report cards and low test scores on the NNAT and Cogat may show an unengaged child who cannot succeed in 1st grade and 2nd grade. Would that child turn around and thrive in AAP? Or not?

Or sometimes the committee makes a mistake. That's why there's an appeal process.

A kid with gifted behaviors and low test scores, who is having trouble staying engaged at school is the very definition of a kid for whom the regular classroom does not meet the child’s needs. This is the kid who needs a different learning environment.

Sorry, I meant low grades, not low test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

That's ridiculous.

How was gbrs?

It shouldn't matter. WISC of 136 is well above the gifted threshold. If the teacher isn't "seeing giftedness" in a child who is objectively gifted, then it probably speaks more to the teacher's biases or lack of understanding of giftedness than it does to the child's ability.

I agree that a WISC of 136 should be in. But report cards and low test scores on the NNAT and Cogat may show an unengaged child who cannot succeed in 1st grade and 2nd grade. Would that child turn around and thrive in AAP? Or not?

Or sometimes the committee makes a mistake. That's why there's an appeal process.

A kid with gifted behaviors and low test scores, who is having trouble staying engaged at school is the very definition of a kid for whom the regular classroom does not meet the child’s needs. This is the kid who needs a different learning environment.

Anonymous wrote:Why do the wisc subscores matter
If the overall score is a 136?!

You all are grasping for some rhyme or reason to this process.

Because if you have some low subscores that affects the strength of the packet. Same with the CogAT. The pp and the OP don't have to post the subscores, but the subscores clearly matter otherwise only the overall scores would in submitted to the committee. Who administered the WISC also matters. But carry on.

Why do the wisc subscores matter
If the overall score is a 136?!

You all are grasping for some rhyme or reason to this process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

Who did the WISC and what were the subscores?

And why was a WISC done outside the appeal process?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

That's ridiculous.

How was gbrs?

It shouldn't matter. WISC of 136 is well above the gifted threshold. If the teacher isn't "seeing giftedness" in a child who is objectively gifted, then it probably speaks more to the teacher's biases or lack of understanding of giftedness than it does to the child's ability.

The subscores might explain why this happened. Just like OP needs to list all the NNAT and CogAT subscores. Otherwise we're just making random comments.

Anonymous wrote:99 percentile, white , WISC 136 and rejected .

Who did the WISC and what were the subscores?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no consistency or transparency to the process. Most kids in AAP are only slightly above average, yet they're rejecting kids who are probably gifted. It makes no sense at all.

This. Completely ridiculous to have AAP at all.

Maybe just have it for the top 2% of kids? MAYBE.

Some elementary school have over half the kids in AAP.

This is a caste system that hurts other kids. period.