PP, I respect your wish for privacy for you and your child, and I do believe that a significant oversight on the order of race was made, not something trivial. I don't see anyone else IDing themselves on this anonymous forum with something that is potentially an extremely rare condition or situation. Good luck with getting all resolved.

unless you are willing to tell this anonymous forum what you are talking about please stop. this isn't a guessing game. what is the point of your posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(spelling) means did I spell grievous properly - it was not a spelling mistake, either.

sounds unfortunate, but likely wouldn't be a factor except in the case of a borderline child -- and those typically do just fine in Gen Ed.

Actually, likely WILL be a factor. If you only knew...not a borderline child, either..not going to explain further, I guess you will just have to believe.

There are so many elements that could make a difference. Only on the surface does it seem, hey, the NNAT, FAT, and GBRS were the same, so why was the outcome different. If it was that simple no committee with six screeners would be needed. An admin person could look at a chart of configurations of the three big numbers, read off yes or no, and prepare the decision letters.

Anonymous wrote:FCPS teacher here. Report card grades and GBRS do not have to correlated in any way. Your child could have straight 4s on the new report card and an additional 4 for GBRS (total!) if they have done nothing to show signs of giftedness per the GBRS stems. 4s on a report card just mean that a child has mastered whatever content is being assessed.

+1

Anonymous wrote:(spelling) means did I spell grievous properly - it was not a spelling mistake, either.

sounds unfortunate, but likely wouldn't be a factor except in the case of a borderline child -- and those typically do just fine in Gen Ed.

Anonymous wrote:FCPS teacher here. Report card grades and GBRS do not have to correlated in any way. Your child could have straight 4s on the new report card and an additional 4 for GBRS (total!) if they have done nothing to show signs of giftedness per the GBRS stems. 4s on a report card just mean that a child has mastered whatever content is being assessed.

Thank you! Am so tired of reading about all 4s when so many (if not most) kids in my children's classes seem to get them. We all think our kids are special, but there is so often a difference between high achievement and ability, particularly in the early years when teaching methods may not support gifted learners.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else had errors in child's screening file?

Last year I pulled my child's file because I was surprised DC didn't get in and found that there was incorrect information on the screening file. In our case it was that "race" was incorrect. I referred the same child with no new test scores (just a new GRBS/work samples from the school) and this year DC was accepted. I haven't pulled this year's file to see if the "race" was corrected.

I would imagine that the DRA scores in the screening file would be an important piece of information, and also any information about special needs.

(spelling) means did I spell grievous properly - it was not a spelling mistake, either.

It was not a simple pronoun mistake. It was grievous (spelling) in nature, though.

Well, in DC's file there was "he/she " in one place on GBRS(13) summary. DC is in.

FCPS teacher here. Report card grades and GBRS do not have to correlated in any way. Your child could have straight 4s on the new report card and an additional 4 for GBRS (total!) if they have done nothing to show signs of giftedness per the GBRS stems. 4s on a report card just mean that a child has mastered whatever content is being assessed.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

because she made a serious accusation and I'm trying determine whether to take her seriously. To say there were "errorors" sound like a basis for appeal DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY WERE. If an inadvetent but not serious mistake, it's just kvetching. I haven't heard a thing yet to suggest reversible error.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Given the example the poster gave, my guess would be there was a discrepancy between the gender on the screening summary sheet and the gender pronoun used on the GBRS comments. To me that would suggest sloppiness in preparation of the GBRS or that the writer didn't actually know whose GBRS they were preparing.

well what difference would that make? none.

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.

Given the example the poster gave, my guess would be there was a discrepancy between the gender on the screening summary sheet and the gender pronoun used on the GBRS comments. To me that would suggest sloppiness in preparation of the GBRS or that the writer didn't actually know whose GBRS they were preparing.