Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of errors were in the file? Files include NNAT and FXAT scores, report card, GBRS and commentary as well as work samples. Where were the errors in your child's file? Wrong scores reported?

the poster keeps saying they were "significant" but won't say what they are, so I say it didn't happen.

Perhaps the poster doesn't want to say because it would be identifying once she goes to the school with it. What difference does it make? I suppose it keeps you from discounting her experience or making snide comments -- otherwise, I can't imagine why it matters to you.

Anonymous wrote:What kind of errors were in the file? Files include NNAT and FXAT scores, report card, GBRS and commentary as well as work samples. Where were the errors in your child's file? Wrong scores reported?

the poster keeps saying they were "significant" but won't say what they are, so I say it didn't happen.

What kind of errors were in the file? Files include NNAT and FXAT scores, report card, GBRS and commentary as well as work samples. Where were the errors in your child's file? Wrong scores reported?

have done this twice now. the first DC's file was poorly put together. i wasn't mad, just disappointed since it signified to me that they weren't supporting DC getting in. 2nd file was the opposite and i coud dsee that they really supported DC.

just saying - you don't need to be mad at them. a poorly put together file basically means they aren't supportive of the child, and the committee gets this. vague comments mean 'we had to write something so we did'.

Of course, I am almost always polite.

Anonymous wrote:Qualified - really? Have you reviewed your child's file - was it full of statistically significant errors that are so obviously wrong that it questions the integrity of the process? Qualified is not how I would describe the cmte members if they are composed of the same or similar folks that prepared DCs file - principal, aart, guidance counselor to name only 3 of the 5 or 6 listed.

To be fair, human beings can make mistakes. If your child's file has obvious errors included, I think the school will work with you to send in a corrected file. Approach them in a, "Could you help me with this, I have noted the following errors in my child's file. Could we work together to fix this?" manner, they will want to make the needed corrections. I would avoid putting them on the defensive, but approach them in a polite and collegial way. The old " you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" approach.

Qualified - really? Have you reviewed your child's file - was it full of statistically significant errors that are so obviously wrong that it questions the integrity of the process? Qualified is not how I would describe the cmte members if they are composed of the same or similar folks that prepared DCs file - principal, aart, guidance counselor to name only 3 of the 5 or 6 listed.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe one could do a FOIA requesting the number of students with a certain score on NNAT, CogAT, GBRS, and number of 3s and 4s accepted into the program and compare their own DC record to make the case for appeal. For example, request to know the number of students with a 98% on the NNAT. Sep. request asking for the number of students with a 98% ranking on the NNAT. Another request for number of children with GBRS of 13 or less (assuming DC had 14) accepted into the program, etc. You get the idea. A very specific request for actual numbers that could, potentially, support an appeal.

This is ridiculous!!! It would prove nothing. Don't you read. The committee looks at everything in the file and determines eligibility. Yes, kids with a lower score on 1 thing may hard gotten in, but it might be 1 point less than your FAT but 30 points more on the nnat.

Cmon!!! The file was denied by the 1st group of 6 QUALIFIED COMMITTEE PEOPLE. They are principals, and teachers. So they know how to read a file. Then all denials are AGAIN reviewed by an oversight committee to make sure they denials are consistent.

Dc's screeing file was also poorly prepared. No major mistakes but clearly no effort was put into it, even though DC had strong scores and was in the pool since last year. We got a poor GBRS (8) and practically no commentary. Just a couple of sentences with trivialities and no depth whatsoever. Also, only one work sample was submitted, and not even a strong one.

Considering that DC is doing well in school (4s in Math, Science, Reading since 1st quarter) and had very strong scores (which clearly demonstrates at least some decent cognitive skills) I doubt that the teacher had nothing better to say or include in the file. Clearly, s/he had no faith in DC's application and no particular interest in supporting it.

Any ideas how to address those issues in the appeal letter? Any similar experiences?

Well said PP. That is what I am intending, as well as adding new information. I am meeting with the AART next week and will post the reply I receive. I have already begun the appeal letter, and will see if AART will review the letter and give me any guidance/suggestions. Do I believe that the outcome would have been different had the file been prepared correctly, I do, as the error is one of significance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to figure out the error, as I already said I wasn't going to say what it was. However, it is such a gross error that it questions the preparation of the file. And, thus, could have a different conclusion been reached had the file been accurately prepared comes to mind, as does the validity of what was in the GBRS to begin. I hope this answers your question, PP. I am being nice, not snide, and apologize if I come across otherwise.

no, not snide just coy. I was trying to figure out if the error was one that, if corrected, would have made a major difference in the outcome.

I believe what the poster is saying is that, given the errors, the file appears to be poorly prepared. Would an error-free file change the outcome? Maybe not, but it's worth a try.

Anonymous wrote:No need to figure out the error, as I already said I wasn't going to say what it was. However, it is such a gross error that it questions the preparation of the file. And, thus, could have a different conclusion been reached had the file been accurately prepared comes to mind, as does the validity of what was in the GBRS to begin. I hope this answers your question, PP. I am being nice, not snide, and apologize if I come across otherwise.

no, not snide just coy. I was trying to figure out if the error was one that, if corrected, would have made a major difference in the outcome.

To the PP with the errors in the file: if you haven't already, you might want to address the issue of the errors with the AART at the school. If you have addressed the issue with the AART, what was the reaction?
It seems that an obvious error should be grounds to have the correct file looked at without a formal appeal.

No need to figure out the error, as I already said I wasn't going to say what it was. However, it is such a gross error that it questions the preparation of the file. And, thus, could have a different conclusion been reached had the file been accurately prepared comes to mind, as does the validity of what was in the GBRS to begin. I hope this answers your question, PP. I am being nice, not snide, and apologize if I come across otherwise.

still trying to figure out what the errors were. Apparently for the pp who made this claim it was something along the lines of the child's race, but it wasn't race - but something like that. So was it was something that would have made a difference if the error had not been made?