PP, I have to disagree a bit because I have one of those "underground" students. DC has strong test scores (CogAt and WISC -- NNAT not so great) but is only in the middle groups at school. I have to ask how a kid that's scoring 97-99 percentile on several of the subtests is only in the "average" groups. I feel like somehow the instruction isn't working or the school is not bothering to find out how well DC can do (they tend to test the kids to grade level and thne stop, I think). My DC did not get in and I think GBRS tanked DC. I think a different approach ( or a more aggressive approach) might be just what the doctor ordered. I think DC could perform in the higher groups at school but the teachers don't seem inclined to bother finding out. I really feel like my child is falling between the cracks.

18:00 - I'm the poster you refer to - thanks for sharing that document - very interesting. Based on my own DCs scores, I thought eligible scores would have generally been high across the categories. Obviously there are wide ranges of test results even among children who qualify for the pool.

Well my guess is that a majority of students placed above the 97th percentile or above on at last least one of the four tests. You need to score that on one of the tests to get in the initial screening pool after all. I just have my doubts about the accuracy of the ability tests in general. At my child’s school over 30% of the 2nd graders (30 students) made it into the pre-screening pool including my son. But I believe that a 50 question COGAT or NNAT is never going to be as strong an indicator ability as say the WISC, GRE or SAT. We are talking about a 50 question test given to 2nd graders. This is why a cringe a bit when the 97% number is being tossed around as some sort of holy grail of ability. I think that the GBRS, DRA, parent comments and work samples are all also valid indicators for determining eligibility. Probably the metric that I would trust the most if I were on the review committee would be the GBRS.

I believe that it would fairly easy to develop a process for accurately identifying the top 2-3% of 2nd graders in Fairfax county (unless for example a student has gone “underground” or has issues) since you are at the very edge of the bell curve. On the other hand I do not believe that any process is ever going to be that accurate for identifying the top 12% of 2nd graders.

Another thing to note is that the pool of eligible students is getting bigger each year. At this rate it may not be too long until the top 20 percent of students are being admitted into the program. I guess that since my son made the cut into the GT program that, I should be tempted to wish that the pool not get diluted down further by admiting more students but, at this rate, I just hope that the program does not one day get eliminated completely to save money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:22:23, is your child 2E? To me, that would explain why the school was so biased and he got sort shrift. If so, I would say they don't understand him.

I am 22:23, my kid is @2E.

Was that apparent from the application? I ask because I may have a 2E kid and I'm trying to figure it all out.

Anonymous wrote:22:23, is your child 2E? To me, that would explain why the school was so biased and he got sort shrift. If so, I would say they don't understand him.

I am 22:23, my kid is @2E.

I do not agree with you 100%. My kid had strong test scores (NNAT-146, COGAT 140), but GBRS is only 6 (I was told has to be 12-16 to be qualified), low ratings from the school. But his work samples are very strong- he had lots of solutions off 2008/2009 AMC8 test- the math contest for grade 8 student. I let the central office know that the school's GBRS is very baised, obviously the committee listened. He was acceptted to AAP center on 4/30.

I did not mean to imply that teacher input was THE deciding factor. In fact, my point was that there is NO deciding factor - the decision is based upon the complete file and there are several relevant factors. In your case, your child had one weak factor (GBRS) but several strong ones (test scores, work samples) and got in. In other cases, children have weaker test scores but a stronger GBRS number and teacher commentary, and they get in. I was correcting Donalan's misstatement that teachers have "little or nothing" to do with the process, when in fact they have a great deal to do with it. I would not want other parents to think that test scores are the only important criterion, as Donalan implied, because that's simply not true. If teacher input didn't matter, you wouldn't have needed to contact the central office to explain why your child had a low GBRS score. I don't think you and I really disagree here; I think you were just pointing out a situation where the GBRS did not sway the committee, and that is useful information to share with the forum.

How does the 2E thing play out in the committee? DO you think they want to exclude 2E kids or do they get it that those kids are bright and need the program but may have other issues? I guess I'm asking whether parents should try to hide the 2E from the committee?

Uneven scores are very common. My DD had a perfect score on NNAT, and good, but not qualifying (low 120s) scores on the CoGAT. This is why we did the WISC just in case we needed it for an appeal but it ended up we didn't need it, at least not for the appeal. We have found it very useful info about her in general.

I think kids who are very visual spatial often don't do well on the CoGAT. The second grade CoGAT in particular is read to the students by the teacher and they have to mark the answer on their sheet. I think the format is a little confusing for some kids and if they are not good auditory processors, then the CoGAT is often hard for them.

18:00 - I'm the poster you refer to - thanks for sharing that document - very interesting. Based on my own DCs scores, I thought eligible scores would have generally been high across the categories. Obviously there are wide ranges of test results even among children who qualify for the pool.

22:23, you wrote that really pushed with your child's school and the central office beforehand. So you must have thought teacher and school had a lot of influence at that time. And they clearly do. There are probably other factors at work. Plus your child had very high scores -- well above the cut off. I agree with 06:14, perhaps your child is 2E. The committee may have been able to figure that out.

I agree too that Donalan's arguments and opinions are inconsistent and some statements of "fact" are not correct.

Donalan, is English your second language? I think this might explain why you seem to be contradicting yourself. It is admirable to want your child to be happy. We all want that.

Keep in mind that many of these children are the ones who are marginally qualified. Parents of kids in the 70th percentile who receive S grades are not trying to get their child into AAP. They know that would be pushing when a child is not ready.

The question concerns children who scored in the 96th, 97th, 98th, 99th percentiles with O grades and maybe some Gs. Perhaps their GBRS wasn't great. Perhaps it was, but their test scores were lower. GBRS is HIGHLY subjective.

Perhaps the regular classroom isn't servicing those children well enough. Parents wish to see if the AAP classes would be a better mix for their child. It may be. It may not be. Once in the AAP program a parent may always return their child to a "normal" classroom if AAP isn't right for them. Some children who don't make the cut for AAP may have still been better off in AAP. THAT is why parents advocate for a child. They too want their child to be happy.

22:23, is your child 2E? To me, that would explain why the school was so biased and he got sort shrift. If so, I would say they don't understand him.

Anonymous wrote:

we are in no way enamored of APP - he is in immersion and that is a good program. We are new to it all. In many ways it would be much easier if he were more normal. If he had not made the cut it would have been fine with us. He has a good heart and a good mind so we think he will be fine with or without APP.

I was surprised when they told us we should basically embellish his score with our observations in applying for app. I mean I would have though 99 percentile was an automatic in. Apparently a lot of parents push really hard for their marginal kids to get in. Not sure why they would do that. I mean why would you put your normal kid in with sort of odd balls like my son - they are not normal. They are literally smarter than me, my Phd wife and virtually all the people I meet.

A lot of people say 'you must be so proud of him' - I am but not because he is smart. It would be like being proud of him because he is really tall. I dont get it. he has a good heart and is kind - im proud of that sure enough. The fact that he memorizes every single thing he sees, reads or does - thats just luck of the draw...

PS teachers have little or nothing to do with this process as I understand it. The fact that people are trying, for their kids, to force them into this program is alien to me. Whom do they think they are helping pushing an unprepared student into an accelerated learning environment? Self esteem is far more important than APP.

PPS sorry to for the poor choice of the word 'marginal' - sounds like the cut off is absurdly high. I understand the frustration having a very smart kid and having to deal with some teachers and admin on that issue. There is nothing 'marginal' about any of our children. I apologize for the gaff.

First, submitting additional information about your child is not "embellishing" the test scores. The County has decided that there are multiple factors relevant to determining eligibility for the Center, and one of those is test scores. Others are teacher assessments, demonstrated achievement in the form of awards or work samples, letters of recommendation from other adults who know the child, and other things. You may or may not agree with it, but that is how the County has decided to evaluate children for placement in the program.

Second, teachers have a TON to do with this process. I cannot emphasize enough how important the teacher recommendations and the GBRS are. Just take a look at the thread regarding the decisions that were mailed out on Friday, and you will see how many children apparently got in on the strength of GBRS/teacher recs when they did not have strong test scores and were not in the automatic screening pool. Teacher input is absolutely crucial in this process. Parents are not "forcing" their children into the Center because it's not possible. Parent input just doesn't carry that much weight; parents are obviously biased in writing glowing recommendations about their kids. Teachers' input, on the other hand, is considered far more objective and carries substantial weight with the selection committee.

Donalan, you describe yourself as totally new to the process. That's fine, but then why not characterize your opinions as exactly that - your opinions? Please stop putting forth so much misinformation as it it were absolute fact. This can be a confusing process, and I fear you are just adding to the confusion without having taken the time to do your homework.

I do not agree with you 100%. My kid had strong test scores (NNAT-146, COGAT 140), but GBRS is only 6 (I was told has to be 12-16 to be qualified), low ratings from the school. But his work samples are very strong- he had lots of solutions off 2008/2009 AMC8 test- the math contest for grade 8 student. I let the central office know that the school's GBRS is very baised, obviously the committee listened. He was acceptted to AAP center on 4/30.

Just because 10-12% of the FCPS second graders are found eligible for level 4 services doesn't necessarily mean that children with low scores (say below 97%) are allowed level 4 services.
.

No, not true at all. The 10-12% number is not the percentage of eligible students it is the percentage of students enrolled in GT level IV centers. In 2006 the total level IV center enrollment was 7,139 out 61,178 students (11.7%). Since 2006 the percentage has only increased.

In 2005, the average COGATs of students in GT was 119 verbal, 126 non-verbal, 121 quatitative and 129 for the NNAT which are all below 97%.

The GT center statistics can be found here

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/board.nsf/39c6389c088be51585256e56000c1bf2/2b1b2b585a5d305e852570fb004f3f9f/$FILE/Gifted%20and%20Talented%20Center%20Program.pdf

These kids are older. Both are in the GTC in middle school now.

Anonymous wrote:13:18, I see what you are saying. The kids I knew of were Level 4 eligible, so I sort of assumed that what their base school gave them was their best Level 4 equivalent. But you are probably right that those were considered Level 3 and not Level 4 services.

It is possible to defer services and opt to reactivate them at any point, up to grade 8.

http://www.fcps.edu/DIS/gt/packet/Fillable_AAP%20Reactivation%20Full-Time%20Program.pdf

13:18, I see what you are saying. The kids I knew of were Level 4 eligible, so I sort of assumed that what their base school gave them was their best Level 4 equivalent. But you are probably right that those were considered Level 3 and not Level 4 services.