Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have two DCs. One got in and has done very well and is at TJ. The other didn't, we opted for rigorous private and DC is hanging in with A-/B+ average there. The top privates don't give a lot of As. At middle school private level, content is less difficult than AAP but much more focused on keen grasp and participation (in a class of 15 kids, you better be on and ready to engage every day). Point is the AAP people got it right. First DC was good tester, extremely self motivated to learn, and very functional in a large group - mature, leader, etc. Second DC is also smart but will head to the back row in a large group, does better with prompting to learn, etc. IMO the AAP people know what they are doing. If your DC didn't make it, there's a small chance of error ... But much more likely than not there's a good reason even if they had one or two good scores.

Oh geeze, blah, blah, blah... ... ... ... ... blah... AAP is not all that. Maybe they had it right with GT but not with AAP unless you want to call it the alternative learning center. OP, be glad and content that your child is in a normal school. He/she will be fine! Actually, most likely even better adjusted. Forget about it and move on. Do you really want to deal with the pool of crazies or just a couple?

Anonymous wrote:We have two DCs. One got in and has done very well and is at TJ. The other didn't, we opted for rigorous private and DC is hanging in with A-/B+ average there. The top privates don't give a lot of As. At middle school private level, content is less difficult than AAP but much more focused on keen grasp and participation (in a class of 15 kids, you better be on and ready to engage every day). Point is the AAP people got it right. First DC was good tester, extremely self motivated to learn, and very functional in a large group - mature, leader, etc. Second DC is also smart but will head to the back row in a large group, does better with prompting to learn, etc. IMO the AAP people know what they are doing. If your DC didn't make it, there's a small chance of error ... But much more likely than not there's a good reason even if they had one or two good scores.

Anonymous wrote:Who, exactly, comprises "the selection committee"? I never hear any names and it's all very mysterious.

The screening pool is
comprised of classroom teachers, AARTs, principals, other supporting teachers such as
ESOL teachers or Special Education teachers, librarians and other FCPS employees
from both the central office and local schools. FCPS employees who participate in the
screening process must undergo a four-hour training session developed and delivered
by the FCPS-AAP Central Office. During this session, screeners cover material
regarding the identification process and how to identify advanced academic potential in
a student file. Then, they also practice identification with a series of simulated files to
extend their understanding of how to apply the screening process. Many screeners who
participate in this process often report that the screening process also serves as a
professional development continuous learning opportunity by helping them appreciate
the many ways that advanced academic potential can manifested.

The screening process is conducted annually and can last up to three full days,
with as many as 50 -100 screeners present each day. The screening pool is different
each day. On the specified dates, qualified screeners review the materials in the file,
and indicate eligibility or not eligible by marking a card and placing it in the back of the
folder. In order for a student to be considered eligible for Level IV services, a student
file must receive four eligible votes. If a file receives four not-eligible votes the student
is not eligible this year. If a file receives 3 eligible and 3 ineligible votes, the file is
reviewed by screeners at another table until either four eligible or ineligible votes are
received. Following the screening process, the central FCPS-AAP office then performs
a second review of files by ranking NNAT, CogAT and GBRS scores to ensure that
there were no ineligible students who had characteristics of students that were
determined eligible. This second review serves as a quality control check of the
screening process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: Really, just one high score (VCI at 99%)? All the other Wisc scores were high avg/avg but overall l was very superior (mid 90s percentile and GAI 132, but psychologist would not report it on the results). So a much lower FSIQ than I see people posting here. And GBRS was really bad.

I appreciate all the input here. The issue is both (1) my own disappointment given the strange discrepancy with scores/performance and (2) the other parents being so nosy.

Yes, just one very high score can be enough. Having the verbal high is great. From reading these boards, I think that verbal is the score most strongly considered. There seems to be research to back this up. See for example the link below. GAI of 132 is great. It doesn't matter that the psychologist (possibly Dr. Dahlgren?) would not report the GAI on the results. The selection committee is experienced with WISC scores and will know how to interpret the subscores. They may even take the lower working memory and processing speed into account as playing into the lower CogAT and NNAT (though not so low from what you said) and the less than stellar GBRS.

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/About_GDC/whoaregiftd.htm

I have read other information on gifted identification that also supports identification based on only one subscore, but I can't seem to quickly find a link at the moment -- sorry. I think the general philosophy is to err on the side of inclusiveness and to nurture potential. Even with CogAT scores, most years kids have been in pool if they had one subscore that met the threshhold.

One caution based on experience that if your child is not a good test taker for whatever mysterious reason, that can carry over to the AAP experience. Getting into the program is just the beginning. I have a DC who is not a good test taker, and I've seen that as you get to third grade and beyond, test scores (SOL and others) are a huge focus. Do others agree? It can be discouraging to always have the issue of test scores hanging over you. The creative projects, writing, and the like don't seem to matter as much as the scores.

Who, exactly, comprises "the selection committee"? I never hear any names and it's all very mysterious.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone is trying to hurt you. They probably assumed your kid got in.

Just say your child did not and move on. I am sure you will have a similar type questioning when your child goes to college. AAP is not the end all be all. Your child can still take honors classes in middle school and AP/IB classes in high school. Perhaps your child will work harder and be motivated to do well.

Anonymous wrote:Who, exactly, comprises "the selection committee"? I never hear any names and it's all very mysterious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: Really, just one high score (VCI at 99%)? All the other Wisc scores were high avg/avg but overall l was very superior (mid 90s percentile and GAI 132, but psychologist would not report it on the results). So a much lower FSIQ than I see people posting here. And GBRS was really bad.

I appreciate all the input here. The issue is both (1) my own disappointment given the strange discrepancy with scores/performance and (2) the other parents being so nosy.

Yes, just one very high score can be enough. Having the verbal high is great. From reading these boards, I think that verbal is the score most strongly considered. There seems to be research to back this up. See for example the link below. GAI of 132 is great. It doesn't matter that the psychologist (possibly Dr. Dahlgren?) would not report the GAI on the results. The selection committee is experienced with WISC scores and will know how to interpret the subscores. They may even take the lower working memory and processing speed into account as playing into the lower CogAT and NNAT (though not so low from what you said) and the less than stellar GBRS.

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/About_GDC/whoaregiftd.htm

I have read other information on gifted identification that also supports identification based on only one subscore, but I can't seem to quickly find a link at the moment -- sorry. I think the general philosophy is to err on the side of inclusiveness and to nurture potential. Even with CogAT scores, most years kids have been in pool if they had one subscore that met the threshhold.

One caution based on experience that if your child is not a good test taker for whatever mysterious reason, that can carry over to the AAP experience. Getting into the program is just the beginning. I have a DC who is not a good test taker, and I've seen that as you get to third grade and beyond, test scores (SOL and others) are a huge focus. Do others agree? It can be discouraging to always have the issue of test scores hanging over you. The creative projects, writing, and the like don't seem to matter as much as the scores.

Anonymous wrote:Op here. The PRI was high average and the rest were average. Will appeal but not at all hopeful given the bad GBRS.

Anonymous wrote:OP here: Really, just one high score (VCI at 99%)? All the other Wisc scores were high avg/avg but overall l was very superior (mid 90s percentile and GAI 132, but psychologist would not report it on the results). So a much lower FSIQ than I see people posting here. And GBRS was really bad.

I appreciate all the input here. The issue is both (1) my own disappointment given the strange discrepancy with scores/performance and (2) the other parents being so nosy.