I didn't realize people prepped 1st and 2nd graders for these tests until after my kid had taken both of them. We didn't even know that they were administering the NNAT until we got the score report.

How do you even get a 6-8 year old to test prep? Practice tests? Games? I can't see either of mine being at all interested in that.

When I see kids with consistently high scores and a low GBRS, I assume that they are either shy about sharing their talents in class or have a personality conflict with their teacher, but I'm also not on the selection committee so my opinion probably doesn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw I learned an interesting stat at the 2E session of the FCPS special ed conference -- Only about 60-something perent of the "in pool" kids get into AAP.

And half of appeals get in.

These facts have been posted here before.

My guess is that some of this is related to spots left vacant when parents decline center placement. It's kind of like being wait-listed in college, but rather than ranking and maintaining a waitlist, they see which parents will appeal. I think AAP sounds nice in theory, but I think actually moving schools is a tougher decision. There's also the people who won't send their kids but were selected anyway -- I know someone who didn't submit a single thing for her in-pool 2E student and he still got in on test scores, GBRS, and teacher work samples. She'll elect for whatever L-III and L-IV services can be provided at base because they're very happy with the local school. His center spot can go to an appeal.

That's not how it works. Unlike college admissions, there is no limit on the number of kids found eligible for AAP. There is a perception that some kids prep for the tests. If test scores are really high and GBRS is really low, sometimes there is an assumption that the scores are based on prepping. On appeal, they take a closer look at whether there were other kids with similar profiles who got in. Also, many parents supplement with the WISC on appeal to negate low test scores or low GBRS. The WISC isn't view as as subject to prepping as the NNAT and CogAT.

Is this sth you know, or sth you conclude? I guess if a child is smart he'd learn quickly, but it does not mean that he's motivated, and that can lower their scores. Also if the child is generally bored, then it's likely the child won't perform. Maybe they love the test bc it seems like a puzzle/game, but hate cutting and pasting all day at school. ...

I didn't say the assumption is correct, I'm just saying the assumption exists. I know there are other reasons why test scores can be high and GBRS low. A smart kid could be shy and not display their "gifted behavior," he could be disruptive in the class and that overshadows his "gifted behavior".... If committee members didn't think the NNAT and CogAT weren't subject to prepping, there is no way a kid with a 140 NNAT and 135 CogAT wouldn't be found eligible. Also, there are schools dedicated to prepping. If they didn't help, they wouldn't still be in business. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing for sure who prepped and who didn't, so assumptions are made when test scores are high and a teacher who works daily with a kid gives that kid an 8 GBRS. I know what happens when you assume, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But teachers say that you really can't prep for the test. They say that there is not a statistically significant increase in scores based on peeping. Also, the problems that the kids will see on the test are new. If the child isn't sharp, the child can't really use his knowledge, bc these tests do not require knowledge. The details that the child needs to see are still there invisible to the child if the child does not get it.

Then why are there so many language school type prep classes? why did they have to spend money creating a whole new test after that one teacher took a test to her night job teaching prep classes?

I have no idea what the language school preps are, or the story about this teacher, but I do know that just by exposing your child to good games, toys, interesting books and pointing out the subtleties you can help the child with test performance. We are working on a gifted math book from B&N with my 1st greater, and there are so many questions that are useful for CogAT format and thinking. Every supplemental material we use has things that help with aptitude tests. The point is if the kid can learn fast and can be prept then the kid can learn.

Aren't we all sending kids to school so they can learn?

The question still remains: Do you KNOW that the committee assumes preping with high test and low GBRS scores, or is it sth you conclude.

Anonymous wrote:But teachers say that you really can't prep for the test. They say that there is not a statistically significant increase in scores based on peeping. Also, the problems that the kids will see on the test are new. If the child isn't sharp, the child can't really use his knowledge, bc these tests do not require knowledge. The details that the child needs to see are still there invisible to the child if the child does not get it.

Then why are there so many language school type prep classes? why did they have to spend money creating a whole new test after that one teacher took a test to her night job teaching prep classes?

But teachers say that you really can't prep for the test. They say that there is not a statistically significant increase in scores based on peeping. Also, the problems that the kids will see on the test are new. If the child isn't sharp, the child can't really use his knowledge, bc these tests do not require knowledge. The details that the child needs to see are still there invisible to the child if the child does not get it.

The only reason not to admit kids with test scores over the threshold is if the committee suspects the test scores do not represent the student. The only reason test scores would be "inaccurately high" would be if the child was prepped before the tests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw I learned an interesting stat at the 2E session of the FCPS special ed conference -- Only about 60-something perent of the "in pool" kids get into AAP.

And half of appeals get in.

These facts have been posted here before.

My guess is that some of this is related to spots left vacant when parents decline center placement. It's kind of like being wait-listed in college, but rather than ranking and maintaining a waitlist, they see which parents will appeal. I think AAP sounds nice in theory, but I think actually moving schools is a tougher decision. There's also the people who won't send their kids but were selected anyway -- I know someone who didn't submit a single thing for her in-pool 2E student and he still got in on test scores, GBRS, and teacher work samples. She'll elect for whatever L-III and L-IV services can be provided at base because they're very happy with the local school. His center spot can go to an appeal.

That's not how it works. Unlike college admissions, there is no limit on the number of kids found eligible for AAP. There is a perception that some kids prep for the tests. If test scores are really high and GBRS is really low, sometimes there is an assumption that the scores are based on prepping. On appeal, they take a closer look at whether there were other kids with similar profiles who got in. Also, many parents supplement with the WISC on appeal to negate low test scores or low GBRS. The WISC isn't view as as subject to prepping as the NNAT and CogAT.

Is this sth you know, or sth you conclude? I guess if a child is smart he'd learn quickly, but it does not mean that he's motivated, and that can lower their scores. Also if the child is generally bored, then it's likely the child won't perform. Maybe they love the test bc it seems like a puzzle/game, but hate cutting and pasting all day at school. ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw I learned an interesting stat at the 2E session of the FCPS special ed conference -- Only about 60-something perent of the "in pool" kids get into AAP.

And half of appeals get in.

These facts have been posted here before.

My guess is that some of this is related to spots left vacant when parents decline center placement. It's kind of like being wait-listed in college, but rather than ranking and maintaining a waitlist, they see which parents will appeal. I think AAP sounds nice in theory, but I think actually moving schools is a tougher decision. There's also the people who won't send their kids but were selected anyway -- I know someone who didn't submit a single thing for her in-pool 2E student and he still got in on test scores, GBRS, and teacher work samples. She'll elect for whatever L-III and L-IV services can be provided at base because they're very happy with the local school. His center spot can go to an appeal.

That's not how it works. Unlike college admissions, there is no limit on the number of kids found eligible for AAP. There is a perception that some kids prep for the tests. If test scores are really high and GBRS is really low, sometimes there is an assumption that the scores are based on prepping. On appeal, they take a closer look at whether there were other kids with similar profiles who got in. Also, many parents supplement with the WISC on appeal to negate low test scores or low GBRS. The WISC isn't view as as subject to prepping as the NNAT and CogAT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw I learned an interesting stat at the 2E session of the FCPS special ed conference -- Only about 60-something perent of the "in pool" kids get into AAP.

And half of appeals get in.

These facts have been posted here before.

My guess is that some of this is related to spots left vacant when parents decline center placement. It's kind of like being wait-listed in college, but rather than ranking and maintaining a waitlist, they see which parents will appeal. I think AAP sounds nice in theory, but I think actually moving schools is a tougher decision. There's also the people who won't send their kids but were selected anyway -- I know someone who didn't submit a single thing for her in-pool 2E student and he still got in on test scores, GBRS, and teacher work samples. She'll elect for whatever L-III and L-IV services can be provided at base because they're very happy with the local school. His center spot can go to an appeal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I just filled out the questionnaire since dc was not in the pool automatically, didn't include anything else. I don't know what the school included.

Congratulations!

No offense, but what was so special about your child, that you child got in despite low test scores. What did you say in the parent questionnaire? What made your child stand out? Did you notice your child's giftedness yourself, or did the AART point it out despite you not understanding.

I'm asking so this can be a lesson learned for my own child, for my child's future, not to be provocative and/or put down your child.

I'm not that parent, but jeez. Someone volunteers information to help out other people in the future and you want her kid's whole life story just because his scores were low. What makes any kid stand out?

Who made you the judge of what's right or wrong. Her information is not helpful the way it is, because it would take extraordinary circumstances to admit s student with those scores to an advanced program. Wanting to know what made this particular child extraordinary is no surprise. She volunteered incomplete information.

There is nothing wrong with showing completeness unless something doesn't add up. You seem to be in the know.

Nope, but you seem really upset about this kid and his test scores.

Your remark is useless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT-140
CoGaT-135
GBRS- ??

Not in

I hope you get a copy of the GBRS and appeal. This is what confuses me about this process.

+1. I'm one of the PPs from yesterday, trying to figure out whether or not to appeal. The more I read about this, the more bewildered I get.

APPEAL! This is crazy given the tests are consistent. Can you find out the GBRS? It might shed a bit but if it is a low GBRS then we know- One high GBRS and one decent score is in- versus two great scores and a ? GBRS = out.

Definitely!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT-140
CoGaT-135
GBRS- ??

Not in

I hope you get a copy of the GBRS and appeal. This is what confuses me about this process.

+1. I'm one of the PPs from yesterday, trying to figure out whether or not to appeal. The more I read about this, the more bewildered I get.

APPEAL! This is crazy given the tests are consistent. Can you find out the GBRS? It might shed a bit but if it is a low GBRS then we know- One high GBRS and one decent score is in- versus two great scores and a ? GBRS = out.

Anonymous wrote:Btw I learned an interesting stat at the 2E session of the FCPS special ed conference -- Only about 60-something perent of the "in pool" kids get into AAP.

And half of appeals get in.

These facts have been posted here before.

CoGat 129 composite (one section was a 138)
Never took NNAT as we were living overseas
WISC-V FS IQ 131
GBRS ??
Yes I did the parent questionnaire and submitted work samples

Just found out my child got in!

The process is so mysterious.