Anonymous wrote:So related as I am reading this. My 140 WISC/CoGAT kid also had very bad handwriting and scored very low in GBRS, we had to appeal to get him in. This is exactly the reason that the committee should not put too much weight on GBRS - too subjective.

Bad handwriting is not good, we worked on it this past summer for a few weeks by going through handwriting books, it is much better now. I was surprised to find out that handwriting was not really taught and practiced in school, but kids are penalized for not doing a good job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are trying to find patterns. There are no patterns.

The only pattern would be that they flipped the results

Seriously, give it a rest. A SMALL subsection (about 40 out of hundreds posted their score) of the AAP population posts in this board. And to extrapolate that the scores were flipped is crazy. Of course, people who got in that did not except to would post. And, those that with high scores that did not get in would post. But I am sure there are many, many, more people out there that got the results they were expected and do not feel the need to post their scores.

+1

Let's assume the pp is correct and only a small subsection of the scores had results similar to those posted here. Even if that's the case, don't you think this albeit small sampling (assuming the posts are truthful) shows a need for more transparency in the process. Some of the scores were incredibly low. If your child legitimately had high scores with no prepping and was rejected, while the low scores listed here were found eligible, are you saying you would not want more transparency as to why this happened? Maybe the letters weren't flipped, but the process needs more transparency. Alternatively, maybe there needs to be two ways to get in: 1. scores and 2. scores plus teacher recommendations. If FCPS is going to say scores are indicative of eligibility, a teacher shouldn't be able to override that, nor should an assumption of prepping if the GBRS commentary doesn't match the test scores. Having an objective admissions standard for automatically admitting students, and also allowing other student to get in based on a combination of scores and GBRS seems like a better process. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns expressed her merely because they only account for a minority of applicants. You also have no clue whether this extrapolates into the general pool.

I never said there shouldn't be transparency. I just said don't rush to the judgement that a mistake was made based on the small sampling represented here.

I think FCPS is doing the best it can. No, I don't work for FCPS. I think FCPS recognizes that test scores, alone, are not enough. Its no different than applying for college. Colleges look at much more than a high SAT/ACT score. They look at the whole package - recommendations, extracurricular activities, grades, etc. Scoring a perfect on the SAT is not going to get you into Harvard. So, why should a high CoGat score automatically qualify you for AAP?

At the end of the day, its AAP. It is not going to make or break your child and their college path.

Scoring a perfect score on the SAT isn't going to get you into Harvard, but you also get the opportunity to pick the teachers who most likely support you to write your letters of recommendation. Not the case in the AAP application process. The GBRS is super subjective and you don't get to pick who fills that out. But, more importantly, these are second graders we're talking about and, unlike Harvard, there is supposedly no limit on the number of kids admitted each year. I'm not saying this because my kid didn't get good GBRS commentary. My kid had great commentary and was found eligible. If the first grade teacher (who was no longer at the school) had input, I am willing to bet the commentary would have been way less glowing. If you have kids in AAP as currently structured you should know that any kid who has high scores and all As can definitely handle the curriculum.

I disagree. That is what the parent referral is for. You can provide your own recommendations, work samples, etc. to supplement what the school supplies. I know we were repeatedly told by our AART to do the parent referral and submit work samples.

And, yes, I do have a child in the program. You are right, they should do well and handle the work load. However, you will be surprised the number that are struggling because of time management issues, less than stellar instruction, etc.

Disagree all you want, but parent referral means very little relative to the FCPS GBRS. And the packet specifically says other FCPS teachers can't write letters of recommendation. Also, it's likely that the many kids struggling with time management issues are the low scoring kids shoehorned in with good GBRS, rather than the high scoring kids who were found ineligible.

As a parent of three kids who have all been in centers (one currently), with composite COGATs in the 135-145 range, looking over all their friends the kids that struggle academically most are the super-smart math kids who are uninterested or less capable in reading/writing (including my own highest scoring kid whose verbal cogat was 140 and who had a 38 DRA in 2nd grade). It's just that when the shift to reading/writing for higher level functions happened around the 4th grade he just didn't move along with it. This has been similar for the handful of kids I have known who struggled in the center AAP despite high scores. The reading and writing and interpretive demands of AAP seem to be considerably higher and it's the lack of interest in independent reading and writing and some deficits in interpretation perhaps that pulls these kids further behind when they are grouped with a peer group that loves to read/write. Since all the subjects (language arts, social studies, science) except math are dependent on in-depth reading/writing this is what really makes AAP hard. In retrospect, I think he would have been better served by gen ed plus highly accelerated math even though he was 99thile for both Verbal and Quant so he could gain confidence in his reading/writing skills and really push forward in his love of math. My more "balanced" kids in practice had lower verbal scores than him but far higher achievement in the actual processes of writing and analysis of reading materials.

+1 I have 3 kids in AAP and the one who scored a 150 struggles the most because he has ADHD and reading/writing is a challenge to him (very common in ADHD kids). My other 2 are more even and although scored lower than their brother, breeze through AAP and are actually quite bored.

+1 Same here. My DC also has ADHD and is struggle with writing. AAP is not difficult for my child except the writing part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are trying to find patterns. There are no patterns.

The only pattern would be that they flipped the results

Seriously, give it a rest. A SMALL subsection (about 40 out of hundreds posted their score) of the AAP population posts in this board. And to extrapolate that the scores were flipped is crazy. Of course, people who got in that did not except to would post. And, those that with high scores that did not get in would post. But I am sure there are many, many, more people out there that got the results they were expected and do not feel the need to post their scores.

+1

Let's assume the pp is correct and only a small subsection of the scores had results similar to those posted here. Even if that's the case, don't you think this albeit small sampling (assuming the posts are truthful) shows a need for more transparency in the process. Some of the scores were incredibly low. If your child legitimately had high scores with no prepping and was rejected, while the low scores listed here were found eligible, are you saying you would not want more transparency as to why this happened? Maybe the letters weren't flipped, but the process needs more transparency. Alternatively, maybe there needs to be two ways to get in: 1. scores and 2. scores plus teacher recommendations. If FCPS is going to say scores are indicative of eligibility, a teacher shouldn't be able to override that, nor should an assumption of prepping if the GBRS commentary doesn't match the test scores. Having an objective admissions standard for automatically admitting students, and also allowing other student to get in based on a combination of scores and GBRS seems like a better process. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns expressed her merely because they only account for a minority of applicants. You also have no clue whether this extrapolates into the general pool.

I never said there shouldn't be transparency. I just said don't rush to the judgement that a mistake was made based on the small sampling represented here.

I think FCPS is doing the best it can. No, I don't work for FCPS. I think FCPS recognizes that test scores, alone, are not enough. Its no different than applying for college. Colleges look at much more than a high SAT/ACT score. They look at the whole package - recommendations, extracurricular activities, grades, etc. Scoring a perfect on the SAT is not going to get you into Harvard. So, why should a high CoGat score automatically qualify you for AAP?

At the end of the day, its AAP. It is not going to make or break your child and their college path.

Scoring a perfect score on the SAT isn't going to get you into Harvard, but you also get the opportunity to pick the teachers who most likely support you to write your letters of recommendation. Not the case in the AAP application process. The GBRS is super subjective and you don't get to pick who fills that out. But, more importantly, these are second graders we're talking about and, unlike Harvard, there is supposedly no limit on the number of kids admitted each year. I'm not saying this because my kid didn't get good GBRS commentary. My kid had great commentary and was found eligible. If the first grade teacher (who was no longer at the school) had input, I am willing to bet the commentary would have been way less glowing. If you have kids in AAP as currently structured you should know that any kid who has high scores and all As can definitely handle the curriculum.

I disagree. That is what the parent referral is for. You can provide your own recommendations, work samples, etc. to supplement what the school supplies. I know we were repeatedly told by our AART to do the parent referral and submit work samples.

And, yes, I do have a child in the program. You are right, they should do well and handle the work load. However, you will be surprised the number that are struggling because of time management issues, less than stellar instruction, etc.

Disagree all you want, but parent referral means very little relative to the FCPS GBRS. And the packet specifically says other FCPS teachers can't write letters of recommendation. Also, it's likely that the many kids struggling with time management issues are the low scoring kids shoehorned in with good GBRS, rather than the high scoring kids who were found ineligible.

As a parent of three kids who have all been in centers (one currently), with composite COGATs in the 135-145 range, looking over all their friends the kids that struggle academically most are the super-smart math kids who are uninterested or less capable in reading/writing (including my own highest scoring kid whose verbal cogat was 140 and who had a 38 DRA in 2nd grade). It's just that when the shift to reading/writing for higher level functions happened around the 4th grade he just didn't move along with it. This has been similar for the handful of kids I have known who struggled in the center AAP despite high scores. The reading and writing and interpretive demands of AAP seem to be considerably higher and it's the lack of interest in independent reading and writing and some deficits in interpretation perhaps that pulls these kids further behind when they are grouped with a peer group that loves to read/write. Since all the subjects (language arts, social studies, science) except math are dependent on in-depth reading/writing this is what really makes AAP hard. In retrospect, I think he would have been better served by gen ed plus highly accelerated math even though he was 99thile for both Verbal and Quant so he could gain confidence in his reading/writing skills and really push forward in his love of math. My more "balanced" kids in practice had lower verbal scores than him but far higher achievement in the actual processes of writing and analysis of reading materials.

+1 I have 3 kids in AAP and the one who scored a 150 struggles the most because he has ADHD and reading/writing is a challenge to him (very common in ADHD kids). My other 2 are more even and although scored lower than their brother, breeze through AAP and are actually quite bored.

Anonymous wrote:+1 on handwriting. DS was punished due to bad handwriting. We got in on the appeal. AART, to be honest, was biased and gave Motivation Occasionally rating because of bad handwriting. Good news though! We are thriving in AAP and DS continues to receive compliments across the school.

My view is that your 2nd-grade teacher and AART like highly obedient children and they will lower your GBRS based on how your child behaves between Sept and Dec!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are trying to find patterns. There are no patterns.

The only pattern would be that they flipped the results

Seriously, give it a rest. A SMALL subsection (about 40 out of hundreds posted their score) of the AAP population posts in this board. And to extrapolate that the scores were flipped is crazy. Of course, people who got in that did not except to would post. And, those that with high scores that did not get in would post. But I am sure there are many, many, more people out there that got the results they were expected and do not feel the need to post their scores.

+1

Let's assume the pp is correct and only a small subsection of the scores had results similar to those posted here. Even if that's the case, don't you think this albeit small sampling (assuming the posts are truthful) shows a need for more transparency in the process. Some of the scores were incredibly low. If your child legitimately had high scores with no prepping and was rejected, while the low scores listed here were found eligible, are you saying you would not want more transparency as to why this happened? Maybe the letters weren't flipped, but the process needs more transparency. Alternatively, maybe there needs to be two ways to get in: 1. scores and 2. scores plus teacher recommendations. If FCPS is going to say scores are indicative of eligibility, a teacher shouldn't be able to override that, nor should an assumption of prepping if the GBRS commentary doesn't match the test scores. Having an objective admissions standard for automatically admitting students, and also allowing other student to get in based on a combination of scores and GBRS seems like a better process. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns expressed her merely because they only account for a minority of applicants. You also have no clue whether this extrapolates into the general pool.

I never said there shouldn't be transparency. I just said don't rush to the judgement that a mistake was made based on the small sampling represented here.

I think FCPS is doing the best it can. No, I don't work for FCPS. I think FCPS recognizes that test scores, alone, are not enough. Its no different than applying for college. Colleges look at much more than a high SAT/ACT score. They look at the whole package - recommendations, extracurricular activities, grades, etc. Scoring a perfect on the SAT is not going to get you into Harvard. So, why should a high CoGat score automatically qualify you for AAP?

At the end of the day, its AAP. It is not going to make or break your child and their college path.

Scoring a perfect score on the SAT isn't going to get you into Harvard, but you also get the opportunity to pick the teachers who most likely support you to write your letters of recommendation. Not the case in the AAP application process. The GBRS is super subjective and you don't get to pick who fills that out. But, more importantly, these are second graders we're talking about and, unlike Harvard, there is supposedly no limit on the number of kids admitted each year. I'm not saying this because my kid didn't get good GBRS commentary. My kid had great commentary and was found eligible. If the first grade teacher (who was no longer at the school) had input, I am willing to bet the commentary would have been way less glowing. If you have kids in AAP as currently structured you should know that any kid who has high scores and all As can definitely handle the curriculum.

I disagree. That is what the parent referral is for. You can provide your own recommendations, work samples, etc. to supplement what the school supplies. I know we were repeatedly told by our AART to do the parent referral and submit work samples.

And, yes, I do have a child in the program. You are right, they should do well and handle the work load. However, you will be surprised the number that are struggling because of time management issues, less than stellar instruction, etc.

Disagree all you want, but parent referral means very little relative to the FCPS GBRS. And the packet specifically says other FCPS teachers can't write letters of recommendation. Also, it's likely that the many kids struggling with time management issues are the low scoring kids shoehorned in with good GBRS, rather than the high scoring kids who were found ineligible.

As a parent of three kids who have all been in centers (one currently), with composite COGATs in the 135-145 range, looking over all their friends the kids that struggle academically most are the super-smart math kids who are uninterested or less capable in reading/writing (including my own highest scoring kid whose verbal cogat was 140 and who had a 38 DRA in 2nd grade). It's just that when the shift to reading/writing for higher level functions happened around the 4th grade he just didn't move along with it. This has been similar for the handful of kids I have known who struggled in the center AAP despite high scores. The reading and writing and interpretive demands of AAP seem to be considerably higher and it's the lack of interest in independent reading and writing and some deficits in interpretation perhaps that pulls these kids further behind when they are grouped with a peer group that loves to read/write. Since all the subjects (language arts, social studies, science) except math are dependent on in-depth reading/writing this is what really makes AAP hard. In retrospect, I think he would have been better served by gen ed plus highly accelerated math even though he was 99thile for both Verbal and Quant so he could gain confidence in his reading/writing skills and really push forward in his love of math. My more "balanced" kids in practice had lower verbal scores than him but far higher achievement in the actual processes of writing and analysis of reading materials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like there is an over reliance on the teacher’s observations, which is so subjective. Why bother with the tests if they don’t count for anything?

Agree, especially when a child’s teacher assignment is random. Some teachers seem to put a lot more effort into tracking a child’s particular noteworthy moments throughout the year.

With all the ridiculous test prepping that goes on, it’s no wonder they are relying more and more on teacher observations. It’s the test results that have become unreliable.

THIS.

Test prepping can only bump up the score so much. So many of the kids being rejected are well above the cutoff. No reasonable person can conclude that this child who would otherwise get a 100 on the test got a 140 through prep.

The problem with relying on teachers is that they’ll have their own bias. How likely are they to choose a bright kid who is outgoing and participates in class consistently, over a bright kid who is shy and afraid to speak up?

My DS is the quite kid who doesn't raise his hand. His teacher flat out told us that she knows he knows the answer and calls on him because she knows he will not volunteer and answer. If things go to pattern (we saw the same thing in day care, pre school, and kindergarten) we are hitting the time period where that is going to change. But his teacher knows that he is the quiet kid who is not going to raise his hand but knows the answer. So I know he is not being overlooked and we are trying to figure out of it simply his personality or a confidence thing. He is 6, so we are not exactly stressing. He is in pool based on his NNAT score. I have no reason to believe that he will not do well on the CogAT, we didn't prep for the NNAT. His GBRSs will be interesting.

As for the results this year, I would love to see the geographic break down on rejection and acceptance. Are some of the higher scores not accepted in areas where there are centers and local programs, indicating that there are more kids then potential spaces, and some of the more surprising lower scores in areas with a higher FARMs rate? I get that they say that there is no limit but the reality is we know how many seats there are at the centers and in the local programs.

And I do suspect that the test scores are discounted because they expect people to be prepping. And while a prepped 140 might be an unprepped 130, still very good, if the kid is not standing out in the classroom then we would expect that kid to be more borderline. I almost think that the super high scores are viewed with greater suspicion then the kids scoring in the 120s and 130s. IT could be that the committee is looking at the GBRSs more seriously for the higher scores because they are worried about prepping.

But that is all rampant speculation.

+1. My guess is they are looking at the gap between high scores, GBRS,work samples and placement in advanced services. Each of these factors has strengths and weaknesses--the tests are standard but they are quirky and subject to inflation through prepping. The GBRS is subjective. Work samples and placement in advanced services might vary by school. Parents of kids with high scores can appeal and take a WISC that can't be as easily prepped. If the scores aren't artificially raised through extensive prepping then the WISC will reflect capacity more accurately. If parents know they prepped they might be less willing to take the WISC. Also, everyone is saying the score can't go up more than a few points--this may be conventional wisdom but is it actually true? Scores at 7 years old are very dynamic and it might be very well true that prepping could push someone up quite a bit.
Parents with low GBRS scores might document evidence that addresses the low scores (e.g. introversion, ELL) and provide examples in their letters and in works that show capacity in areas deemed low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like there is an over reliance on the teacher’s observations, which is so subjective. Why bother with the tests if they don’t count for anything?

Agree, especially when a child’s teacher assignment is random. Some teachers seem to put a lot more effort into tracking a child’s particular noteworthy moments throughout the year.

With all the ridiculous test prepping that goes on, it’s no wonder they are relying more and more on teacher observations. It’s the test results that have become unreliable.

THIS.

Test prepping can only bump up the score so much. So many of the kids being rejected are well above the cutoff. No reasonable person can conclude that this child who would otherwise get a 100 on the test got a 140 through prep.

The problem with relying on teachers is that they’ll have their own bias. How likely are they to choose a bright kid who is outgoing and participates in class consistently, over a bright kid who is shy and afraid to speak up?

My DS is the quite kid who doesn't raise his hand. His teacher flat out told us that she knows he knows the answer and calls on him because she knows he will not volunteer and answer. If things go to pattern (we saw the same thing in day care, pre school, and kindergarten) we are hitting the time period where that is going to change. But his teacher knows that he is the quiet kid who is not going to raise his hand but knows the answer. So I know he is not being overlooked and we are trying to figure out of it simply his personality or a confidence thing. He is 6, so we are not exactly stressing. He is in pool based on his NNAT score. I have no reason to believe that he will not do well on the CogAT, we didn't prep for the NNAT. His GBRSs will be interesting.

As for the results this year, I would love to see the geographic break down on rejection and acceptance. Are some of the higher scores not accepted in areas where there are centers and local programs, indicating that there are more kids then potential spaces, and some of the more surprising lower scores in areas with a higher FARMs rate? I get that they say that there is no limit but the reality is we know how many seats there are at the centers and in the local programs.

And I do suspect that the test scores are discounted because they expect people to be prepping. And while a prepped 140 might be an unprepped 130, still very good, if the kid is not standing out in the classroom then we would expect that kid to be more borderline. I almost think that the super high scores are viewed with greater suspicion then the kids scoring in the 120s and 130s. IT could be that the committee is looking at the GBRSs more seriously for the higher scores because they are worried about prepping.

But that is all rampant speculation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are trying to find patterns. There are no patterns.

The only pattern would be that they flipped the results

Seriously, give it a rest. A SMALL subsection (about 40 out of hundreds posted their score) of the AAP population posts in this board. And to extrapolate that the scores were flipped is crazy. Of course, people who got in that did not except to would post. And, those that with high scores that did not get in would post. But I am sure there are many, many, more people out there that got the results they were expected and do not feel the need to post their scores.

+1

Let's assume the pp is correct and only a small subsection of the scores had results similar to those posted here. Even if that's the case, don't you think this albeit small sampling (assuming the posts are truthful) shows a need for more transparency in the process. Some of the scores were incredibly low. If your child legitimately had high scores with no prepping and was rejected, while the low scores listed here were found eligible, are you saying you would not want more transparency as to why this happened? Maybe the letters weren't flipped, but the process needs more transparency. Alternatively, maybe there needs to be two ways to get in: 1. scores and 2. scores plus teacher recommendations. If FCPS is going to say scores are indicative of eligibility, a teacher shouldn't be able to override that, nor should an assumption of prepping if the GBRS commentary doesn't match the test scores. Having an objective admissions standard for automatically admitting students, and also allowing other student to get in based on a combination of scores and GBRS seems like a better process. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns expressed her merely because they only account for a minority of applicants. You also have no clue whether this extrapolates into the general pool.

I never said there shouldn't be transparency. I just said don't rush to the judgement that a mistake was made based on the small sampling represented here.

I think FCPS is doing the best it can. No, I don't work for FCPS. I think FCPS recognizes that test scores, alone, are not enough. Its no different than applying for college. Colleges look at much more than a high SAT/ACT score. They look at the whole package - recommendations, extracurricular activities, grades, etc. Scoring a perfect on the SAT is not going to get you into Harvard. So, why should a high CoGat score automatically qualify you for AAP?

At the end of the day, its AAP. It is not going to make or break your child and their college path.

Scoring a perfect score on the SAT isn't going to get you into Harvard, but you also get the opportunity to pick the teachers who most likely support you to write your letters of recommendation. Not the case in the AAP application process. The GBRS is super subjective and you don't get to pick who fills that out. But, more importantly, these are second graders we're talking about and, unlike Harvard, there is supposedly no limit on the number of kids admitted each year. I'm not saying this because my kid didn't get good GBRS commentary. My kid had great commentary and was found eligible. If the first grade teacher (who was no longer at the school) had input, I am willing to bet the commentary would have been way less glowing. If you have kids in AAP as currently structured you should know that any kid who has high scores and all As can definitely handle the curriculum.

I disagree. That is what the parent referral is for. You can provide your own recommendations, work samples, etc. to supplement what the school supplies. I know we were repeatedly told by our AART to do the parent referral and submit work samples.

And, yes, I do have a child in the program. You are right, they should do well and handle the work load. However, you will be surprised the number that are struggling because of time management issues, less than stellar instruction, etc.

Disagree all you want, but parent referral means very little relative to the FCPS GBRS. And the packet specifically says other FCPS teachers can't write letters of recommendation. Also, it's likely that the many kids struggling with time management issues are the low scoring kids shoehorned in with good GBRS, rather than the high scoring kids who were found ineligible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem at our base school is about 40% of the class is FARMS/ELL who are below grade level. Then the top 10-15% leave for the center. In each classroom, there will only be a few kids left who are even working above grade level at all. Our school shares an AART with another school and i have been told level 3 meets every other week for 45 minutes.

Providence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Level 3 is a joke at our school. 1-2 hours a month with a part time art.

exactly. That is why there is such a push to get kids into Level 4 -- b/c there is a cliff b/t level 3 and level 4. It's an "all" or "almost-nothing" situation.

If they are in level 3 plus highest math and highest reading group it shouldn’t be a huge difference.

are you not getting it? Level 3 = 45 min. in ONE subject each quarter for 45 min per week. So, if you are in "Level 3" at my kids' elem. school, and if you are lucky enough to get the pull outs each quarter (that is not guaranteed even if your CogAT is 130), then the most you can get is 45 min (TOTAL) per week for about 6 weeks out of each quarter. I think that IS a "huge difference" compared to fulltime AAP at a center.

The problem at our base school is about 40% of the class is FARMS/ELL who are below grade level. Then the top 10-15% leave for the center. In each classroom, there will only be a few kids left who are even working above grade level at all. Our school shares an AART with another school and i have been told level 3 meets every other week for 45 minutes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter’s NNAT was 120
COGAT is:
V: 111
Q: 129
NV: 126
Composite (VQN): 127

Her GBRS is all occasional. She took WISC-5 and her Full scale iq was 129. Her subset scores were at "very high" or "extremely high" however her verbal comprehension was the just average. She is bilingual. Any suggestions on appealing?

Wow, that sucks. This is the worst rating I've seen on here. This is why they place way too much emphasis on the teacher input.