Regarding appeals. We now have our WISC scores.

So folks generally submit the whole report, right? There is a lot of really good information in there. Some of her scores are really high and some not so much. It is really interesting.

My question becomes how much difference does a WISC make when test scores were already outstanding? Does the committee assume that there are a lot of kids who were prepped or who just got lucky on the group tests? Does an individual assessment make that much difference? (I'm asking, I really don't know.)

I have no basis for saying this, but I would think maybe the WISC is a bit more useful because it is an individual test. The psychologist is sitting there alone with your child, so presumably it is easier for the child to remain focused, understand the questions, etc. and for the psychologist to get an accurate measure of you child. So I think the WISC takes away some of the variables that exist with group testing and could demonstrate that a child who didn't do so great on the group tests nonetheless is gifted if the WISC scores are high.

However, if the group ability test scores are already outstanding, I would think the WISC would have to be as high as or higher than those scores in order for it to have any influence. I don't think the Committee is unaware that people are prepping their kids for these tests - both the group tests and the WISC. But the scores are what they are, and there's no way to "prove" a child was prepped, and if there was, would that really discount the scores? Having looked at the somewhat out of date document posted on one of the other threads regarding eligibility and appeal data, it seems that it is VERY helpful to use WISC scores on appeal. The percentage of successful appeals was much higher for those that submitted WISC scores.

The only way I would choose not to use them is if they were lower than the group ability tests. Also, you get a multi-page written report with the scores (at least I did when my child was tested several years ago, not for GT eligibility but for other reasons), and you submit that whole thing, so there is a little more detailed information in there than what you see on the ability test score report. You can also submit other info with the appeal, can't you? Something explaining why your child doesn't have a stellar report card & GBRS but is nonetheless qualified for the Center?

There isn't much difference between test scores in the top percentiles. And it is great that GBRS allows another source of information which allows additional consideration for Level IV placement when a child only missed the test-score cut off by a hair. Many of us get that and even agree with it.

But aren't we talking about appeals?
Lets see a show of hands.
How many need to appeal even though their child scored a high GBRS?
How many need to appeal and their child scored a low GBRS?

Consider the possibility that the committee weighs submission materials approximately in thirds. One third for report cards and school work samples. One third for GBRS with commentary. One third for test scores. It is highly likely that children who get great report cards are going to score higher on a GBRS. Give those kids two big pluses. Yet there are many gifted kids who don't do that well in regular school--that is part of why they need special services. So grades aren't that great and this affects how the teacher views a child when she provides info for the GBRS. Many of those gifted children scored extremely well on the test. Yet, they may not be eligible for Level IV services because they didn't hit those other two marks (school work and GBRS).

My question becomes how much difference does a WISC make when test scores were already outstanding? Does the committee assume that there are a lot of kids who were prepped or who just got lucky on the group tests? Does an individual assessment make that much difference? (I'm asking, I really don't know.)

If you got into the Center, you definitely have the option to choose LLIV (if it exists at your base school), but there are also plenty of kids who did not get into the Center who will end up in the LLIV classroom. One issue is that they need to balance the class sizes. If only a small handful of Center-eligible kids choose to remain at the base school in the LLIV classroom, the school has to fill up that LLIV classroom somehow, so they have to pull in more kids who were not Center-eligible.

But that decision -- which non-LLIV children are placed with the LLIV is not determined by the county committee, but rather locally at the school. So, of course, some children who are not in the "AAP Level IV" will be getting the services. In fact, this may be an advantage in not having the base school be a LLIV center.

but there are also plenty of kids who did not get into the Center who will end up in the LLIV classroom

Not the PP, but again the problem is not all FCPS schools have LLIV. Also, if your base school is a GT/AAP center, there is no "local" Level IV. But every FCPS student who is identified as AAP eligible has the option to attend a center. So if you think your child would benefit from a center but they don't quite qualify (for whatever reason), this is why the appeals process is so important.

Doesn't LLIV have the same selection criteria as Level IV Centers? Only difference is LLIV might have some Level III students in it. Did anyone get accepted into LLIV without having the option to go to the level IV C?

I think you answered your own question! The LLIV classes have some Level III kids in them - so those are kids who are not accepted into the Center but they are moved into the LLIV classroom. If you got into the Center, you definitely have the option to choose LLIV (if it exists at your base school), but there are also plenty of kids who did not get into the Center who will end up in the LLIV classroom. One issue is that they need to balance the class sizes. If only a small handful of Center-eligible kids choose to remain at the base school in the LLIV classroom, the school has to fill up that LLIV classroom somehow, so they have to pull in more kids who were not Center-eligible.

And Local Level IV services are in place to reach out to these "still gifted but not as highly gifted" students.

Sigh. I think we're starting to talk ourselves in circles here. Yes, test scores are only one element, but many here argue they should be the only or the most heavily-weighted element of the process, and I disagree.

But, to respond to your comment: First, LLIV is a full-time AAP placement but does it NOT provide the same level of services as the Center.

More importantly, we were talking about the kids who didn't quite score into the automatic pool but are still eligible for the Center, and specifically discussing how other things besides "giftedness" can account for a difference of a few points or more on these tests (eg, test preparation, a momentary lack of concentration when questions are given orally, etc.). You seem to imply that a slightly lower test score indicates a slightly lower degree of giftedness; I would argue that the testing is not that precise.

Clearly there is a difference between a child who scores in the 50th percentile and one in the 99th. But between the 96th and the 98th? Maybe the child didn't hear one of the questions correctly, or did understand but then inadvertently marked the wrong answer on the test booklet, as kids are prone to do - that could be enough to make that difference in percentile scores. The whole point is that attributing significance to a difference of a few points in the upper echelon of scores on these tests is splitting hairs; it really is not a useful way to distinguish, in your words, kids who are "still gifted but not as highly gifted" from those who should be in the Center.

Right. And the questions are read orally and only once; the teacher cannot repeat the questions. If your kid spaces out for a few seconds (not hard to imagine when a 7-yr old boy is being made to sit through a test), there goes any chance of answering that question correctly. Just a few questions can make a big difference in the score.

In a way, they are testing test-taking ability. That's why I think the individually-administered IQ tests are more useful than group ability tests, but of course it's not feasible for schools to test each child individually.



But the test scores are just one element of the selection process.

And Local Level IV services are in place to reach out to these "still gifted but not as highly gifted" students.

Doesn't LLIV have the same selection criteria as Level IV Centers? Only difference is LLIV might have some Level III students in it. Did anyone get accepted into LLIV without having the option to go to the level IV C?

Sometimes, this discussion is hard to follow...

LLIV are only an option in some places: Centers do not (of course) have LL IV and not all schools have local level IV.

It seems to me the county selection process does try to accommodate most of the mentioned issues: Test scores count "equally" to GBRS...And in theory equally to wrok samples, recommendations, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

and a little test prep can easily result in a few more question correctly, which could mean the difference between 120 and and 140 on the CogAT.

Right. And the questions are read orally and only once; the teacher cannot repeat the questions. If your kid spaces out for a few seconds (not hard to imagine when a 7-yr old boy is being made to sit through a test), there goes any chance of answering that question correctly. Just a few questions can make a big difference in the score.

In a way, they are testing test-taking ability. That's why I think the individually-administered IQ tests are more useful than group ability tests, but of course it's not feasible for schools to test each child individually.

But the test scores are just one element of the selection process.

And Local Level IV services are in place to reach out to these "still gifted but not as highly gifted" students.

and a little test prep can easily result in a few more question correctly, which could mean the difference between 120 and and 140 on the CogAT.

Right. And the questions are read orally and only once; the teacher cannot repeat the questions. If your kid spaces out for a few seconds (not hard to imagine when a 7-yr old boy is being made to sit through a test), there goes any chance of answering that question correctly. Just a few questions can make a big difference in the score.

In a way, they are testing test-taking ability. That's why I think the individually-administered IQ tests are more useful than group ability tests, but of course it's not feasible for schools to test each child individually.

So, when someone refers to the "low score and high GBRS" kids, we are NOT talking about kids who tested in the 50th percentile, or even the 75th, who are just coasting into the Center b/c their teachers wrote them a great GBRS.

Well said....and a little test prep can easily result in a few more question correctly, which could mean the difference between 120 and and 140 on the CogAT.


It would be interesting to look at grades in the 5th grade as a function of GBRS and CogAT/NNAT in the second grade. Which has a stronger correlation? I suspect no one will do the study.

This was in response to a poster questioning why kids with low scores and high GBRS are accepted. The appeals process is a fair process in most cases.

Can we just be clear about these kids with "low scores and high GBRS?"

That's an easy shorthand to use, but by and large, the kids we are talking about do NOT have "low" test scores. The automatic pool typically cuts off at the 98th-99th percentile. Most of these "low score" kids are in the ~90th percentile and above. These are still VERY high test scores in the grand scheme of things. The difference between 98th and 95th percentile could be just a couple of test questions. My referral kid was 95th percentile and he got in, and I keep feeling the need to defend him (and the referral process generally) on these boards because there seems to be a perception that referred kids did not "test in" and therefore did not get in on their own merit, but were somehow pushed in via the GBRS b/c the teacher played favorites. Maybe I'm just being defensive, but I have seen so many of those kinds of comments on this board recently.

So, when someone refers to the "low score and high GBRS" kids, we are NOT talking about kids who tested in the 50th percentile, or even the 75th, who are just coasting into the Center b/c their teachers wrote them a great GBRS.

Considering how many kids were found ineligible, I really do not believe that hordes of unqualified kids with poor test scores are being accepted into the Center on the basis of GBRS alone. I do believe, however, that there are some qualified kids who are not identified as such during the screening process. Hopefully the appeal process works fairly to reconsider those kids and admit the ones who should be eligible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
AAP is not a a pool restricted by maximum enrollment. They take in as many as are eligible. So PP, you should not worry about other kids because they are not the reason why your child was denied.

I don't think people worry that other children got into a Center which, in turn, resulted their child being denied. I think they feel that GBRS may not accurately represent their child, and that the committee puts too much weight on GBRS scores. This may result in children who are in need of services being denied.

This was in response to a poster questioning why kids with low scores and high GBRS are accepted. The appeals process is a fair process in most cases.

By the way, the science fair at Louise Archer is run by the PTA, not by the school. PTA makes all of the difference in the school.

Appeals: I would have to imaging that the desire to do a science fair is almost as important as the conent for "potential giftedness"