Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wroteC ACCEPTED. 83% FAT, 121 NNAT, GBRS 11, Wisc 120. Mostly 3s, two 4s, and a couple of 2s on report card. Parent referral.

That was my DC. Again, work samples can trup everything. AART had some amazing work samples for my DC and I assume that the panel saw them and realized test scores were not an accurate reflection of the ability/intelligence level. Thank goodness the AART at our school cared!

I don't believe this.

New Poster here - DC was in pool based on NNAT (99%), but would not have made the pool based on CogAT VQN. Grades are all 4s in core areas. DC is reading above grade level and receiving some differentiated lessons. I requested the screening file. GBRS was 13 with really good narrative. Teacher-submitted work samples included notations as to what behaviors each one showed. We did not submit any work samples from home. We did include letters of recommendation from people who know DC and also have prior experience with GT or AAP, both as teachers (not FCPS) and as parents. IMO, DC's test scores were marginal, but the overall file was strong. DC was accepted for Level IV for next year. I believe the committee took the whole file into account.

We had almost IDENTICAL scores are were found NOT elgible. What gives? 99% NNAT, sos-so fxat, 13 GBRS, ALL 4s. I am really confused.

That's my point. There must have been something BESIDES test scores in the file that tipped the balance for the screening committee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wroteC ACCEPTED. 83% FAT, 121 NNAT, GBRS 11, Wisc 120. Mostly 3s, two 4s, and a couple of 2s on report card. Parent referral.

That was my DC. Again, work samples can trup everything. AART had some amazing work samples for my DC and I assume that the panel saw them and realized test scores were not an accurate reflection of the ability/intelligence level. Thank goodness the AART at our school cared!

I don't believe this.

New Poster here - DC was in pool based on NNAT (99%), but would not have made the pool based on CogAT VQN. Grades are all 4s in core areas. DC is reading above grade level and receiving some differentiated lessons. I requested the screening file. GBRS was 13 with really good narrative. Teacher-submitted work samples included notations as to what behaviors each one showed. We did not submit any work samples from home. We did include letters of recommendation from people who know DC and also have prior experience with GT or AAP, both as teachers (not FCPS) and as parents. IMO, DC's test scores were marginal, but the overall file was strong. DC was accepted for Level IV for next year. I believe the committee took the whole file into account.

We had almost IDENTICAL scores are were found NOT elgible. What gives? 99% NNAT, sos-so fxat, 13 GBRS, ALL 4s. I am really confused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wroteC ACCEPTED. 83% FAT, 121 NNAT, GBRS 11, Wisc 120. Mostly 3s, two 4s, and a couple of 2s on report card. Parent referral.

That was my DC. Again, work samples can trup everything. AART had some amazing work samples for my DC and I assume that the panel saw them and realized test scores were not an accurate reflection of the ability/intelligence level. Thank goodness the AART at our school cared!

I don't believe this.

New Poster here - DC was in pool based on NNAT (99%), but would not have made the pool based on CogAT VQN. Grades are all 4s in core areas. DC is reading above grade level and receiving some differentiated lessons. I requested the screening file. GBRS was 13 with really good narrative. Teacher-submitted work samples included notations as to what behaviors each one showed. We did not submit any work samples from home. We did include letters of recommendation from people who know DC and also have prior experience with GT or AAP, both as teachers (not FCPS) and as parents. IMO, DC's test scores were marginal, but the overall file was strong. DC was accepted for Level IV for next year. I believe the committee took the whole file into account.

What was the CogAT VQN score?

I don't remember the individual components, but the VQN was 75%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wroteC ACCEPTED. 83% FAT, 121 NNAT, GBRS 11, Wisc 120. Mostly 3s, two 4s, and a couple of 2s on report card. Parent referral.

That was my DC. Again, work samples can trup everything. AART had some amazing work samples for my DC and I assume that the panel saw them and realized test scores were not an accurate reflection of the ability/intelligence level. Thank goodness the AART at our school cared!

I don't believe this.

New Poster here - DC was in pool based on NNAT (99%), but would not have made the pool based on CogAT VQN. Grades are all 4s in core areas. DC is reading above grade level and receiving some differentiated lessons. I requested the screening file. GBRS was 13 with really good narrative. Teacher-submitted work samples included notations as to what behaviors each one showed. We did not submit any work samples from home. We did include letters of recommendation from people who know DC and also have prior experience with GT or AAP, both as teachers (not FCPS) and as parents. IMO, DC's test scores were marginal, but the overall file was strong. DC was accepted for Level IV for next year. I believe the committee took the whole file into account.

What was the CogAT VQN score?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wroteC ACCEPTED. 83% FAT, 121 NNAT, GBRS 11, Wisc 120. Mostly 3s, two 4s, and a couple of 2s on report card. Parent referral.

That was my DC. Again, work samples can trup everything. AART had some amazing work samples for my DC and I assume that the panel saw them and realized test scores were not an accurate reflection of the ability/intelligence level. Thank goodness the AART at our school cared!

I don't believe this.

New Poster here - DC was in pool based on NNAT (99%), but would not have made the pool based on CogAT VQN. Grades are all 4s in core areas. DC is reading above grade level and receiving some differentiated lessons. I requested the screening file. GBRS was 13 with really good narrative. Teacher-submitted work samples included notations as to what behaviors each one showed. We did not submit any work samples from home. We did include letters of recommendation from people who know DC and also have prior experience with GT or AAP, both as teachers (not FCPS) and as parents. IMO, DC's test scores were marginal, but the overall file was strong. DC was accepted for Level IV for next year. I believe the committee took the whole file into account.

Anonymous wrote:what is WISC?
My Daughter took nnat and cogat..
anyone tell me what is WISC and FxAT?

WISC is a IQ test administered by a private psychologist or other tester. It's an individual test as opposed to the group tests given by FCPS.

FxAT is what people are calling the "customized for Fairfax" version of the CogAT. You'll see it referred to as FxAT, Fairfax CogAT or simply CogAT. This school year is the first year the customized version was used.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wroteC ACCEPTED. 83% FAT, 121 NNAT, GBRS 11, Wisc 120. Mostly 3s, two 4s, and a couple of 2s on report card. Parent referral.

That was my DC. Again, work samples can trup everything. AART had some amazing work samples for my DC and I assume that the panel saw them and realized test scores were not an accurate reflection of the ability/intelligence level. Thank goodness the AART at our school cared!

I don't believe this.

Anonymous wrote:What's the lowest test score you've seen for a GBRS of 14+? If a child has a GBRS that high, I would think that the test score is probably pretty high as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding the work samples. If I handed you a pile of work samples from 100 "in pool" second graders, you could probably pick out the clear top 10 and bottom 10 samples. I would think the roughly 80 in between would be pretty hard to rank/differentiate.

GBRS 16 with a FxAT of 90 and NNAT 155

Anonymous wrote:What is WISE?

I think the poster meant to type WISC, but autocorrect made it "WISE".

Anonymous wrote:What's the lowest test score you've seen for a GBRS of 14+? If a child has a GBRS that high, I would think that the test score is probably pretty high as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding the work samples. If I handed you a pile of work samples from 100 "in pool" second graders, you could probably pick out the clear top 10 and bottom 10 samples. I would think the roughly 80 in between would be pretty hard to rank/differentiate.

A pp posted a 14 GBRS and 72 percent FxAT and her DC was accepted.

What's the lowest test score you've seen for a GBRS of 14+? If a child has a GBRS that high, I would think that the test score is probably pretty high as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding the work samples. If I handed you a pile of work samples from 100 "in pool" second graders, you could probably pick out the clear top 10 and bottom 10 samples. I would think the roughly 80 in between would be pretty hard to rank/differentiate.

Anonymous wrote:I get the sense that the bulk of In or Out decisions are made based on the test score.

There is probably a small percentage (mostly extreme cases), where the GBRS and work samples can push a child in or out.

And then there is the parent questionnaire and parent submitted work samples and recommendations. Which I wouldn't be surprised if they have very little sway and are likely in place to allow the parent to think "I have some control over this situation", and to mitigate criticism from the "how can you base it on a test given on a single day" crowd.

Except observations show that gbrs usually matters more than test scores. I have never seen a 14+ gbrs rejected

What the committee seems to want is multiple points of evidence that the child needs the program. If 3-5 work samples from in class projects demonstrate this need, and the test scores are lower than the pool benchmarks. I think that this is still demonstrating the need.
Remember a nnat or cogat score is only 1 data point but the work samples are showing potentially 5 points in time. I think a lot of weight is given to the work sample that the school, puts in. We all know that there can be bias in the GBRS. Also, there can be prepping in the COGAT/NNAT. The current report cards don't tell the committee much at all since all kids have mostly 4s &3s. So then I do think it comes done to what they see as work produced by the student at this point in time...not future potential as this program starts in a few months.

I get the sense that the bulk of In or Out decisions are made based on the test score.

There is probably a small percentage (mostly extreme cases), where the GBRS and work samples can push a child in or out.

And then there is the parent questionnaire and parent submitted work samples and recommendations. Which I wouldn't be surprised if they have very little sway and are likely in place to allow the parent to think "I have some control over this situation", and to mitigate criticism from the "how can you base it on a test given on a single day" crowd.

the writing samples would have to be quite special to overcome mediocre test scores - and very importantly, I would only accept writing samples done in class. Never ones brought in from home.