Anonymous wrote:Looks like there are two group parents - ones with high test score, who believe score tells the truth, and ones with high GBRS, who think opposite. This argument is non-sense.
I would like to see any parent with high test score/low GBRS agrees with teacher, or low test score/High GBRS think GBRS is highly subjective. anyone?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:FSIQ 152 means much much much much more than GBRS 6.
It crushes the GBRS. IN.
^ and of course you speak for the FCPS on this?
Anonymous wrote:FSIQ 152 means much much much much more than GBRS 6.
It crushes the GBRS. IN.
Anonymous wrote:Training is one aspect but how they apply their training can be subjective as well.
That does not prove the AART is biased. Rather, it is possible that your snow flake chose not to display her brilliance in a manner consistent with giftedness behaviors, perhaps because she has a pushy mother who fixes everything for her.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here comes my observation, sure to be flamed. Often the exceptionally gifted child (IQ above 145) comes with other issues that can be misconstrued by over-worked or under-trained teachers. That seemingly lazy, disengaged, self-absorbed, disruptive child could be the next Einstein (who probably would have scored a 2 on the GBRS ).
totally agree. this happened with my DC. teachers mistake raising your hand all the time for giftedness.
Absolutely. Because we as parents know far more about all gifted kids and their potential than teachers who have been trained to look for gifted traits and behaviors.
To say that teachers, all teachers, are trained to look for gifted traits is ridiculous. They have absolutely no training in this area. They teacher 25 to 30 kids a year and their average classroom IQ is probably 115. To think they are experts in understanding giftedness is comical.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here comes my observation, sure to be flamed. Often the exceptionally gifted child (IQ above 145) comes with other issues that can be misconstrued by over-worked or under-trained teachers. That seemingly lazy, disengaged, self-absorbed, disruptive child could be the next Einstein (who probably would have scored a 2 on the GBRS ).
totally agree. this happened with my DC. teachers mistake raising your hand all the time for giftedness.
Absolutely. Because we as parents know far more about all gifted kids and their potential than teachers who have been trained to look for gifted traits and behaviors.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My larger concern withe gbrs is it may favor the kids who score high on the verbal components of the Wisc/ coat. I think the kids more at risk of it not necessarily being a fair assessment for are the non-verbal/ quant kids. Even the 4 categories on the gbrs seem like they would skew toward those kids who excel in those types of intelligence. I'd low to hear from parents of kids who fit this profile and how they thought the gbrs reflected their kid.
I think you said this well, as my kid has more visual spatial and mathematical traits therefore the low GBRS, but then that is not fair that these type of kids are overlooked for their GBRS's.
High mathematical/non-verbal scores are not overlooked.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My larger concern withe gbrs is it may favor the kids who score high on the verbal components of the Wisc/ coat. I think the kids more at risk of it not necessarily being a fair assessment for are the non-verbal/ quant kids. Even the 4 categories on the gbrs seem like they would skew toward those kids who excel in those types of intelligence. I'd low to hear from parents of kids who fit this profile and how they thought the gbrs reflected their kid.
I think you said this well, as my kid has more visual spatial and mathematical traits therefore the low GBRS, but then that is not fair that these type of kids are overlooked for their GBRS's.