Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem no one mentions is that teacher referrals (for kids not in the pool) carry more weight than parent referrals and I know several parents who, instead of referring themselves, pressured their teachers to do the referring. Not kosher!

The only referrals allowed should be teacher referrals. Parents could still do additional WISC testing but then show those scores to the teacher and the teacher can decide whether a referral is necessary.

ANY referral -- be it a teacher referral, a parent referral, or even a self-referral -- is treated the same way. One does not have more "weight" than another. Any referral initiates the process of the local school putting together a screening file (by the AART).

More information on the state regulations can be found at:
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/gifted_ed/faq.shtml

Referral is a direct procedure that enters a student into a school division's identification process. Referral of a student requires the school division to administer all assessments and reach an eligibility decision as specified in the division's approved local plan for the
education the gifted. Referrals may be offered by parents, teachers, community members, administrators, peers, or the student him or herself.

Keep living in your dream world. That's not true. Even when they do the first in-school screening panel it carries more weight with the staff on the panel if the they think the referral came from the teacher so that candidate is more likely to pass successfully through the following county committee.

Anonymous wrote:The problem no one mentions is that teacher referrals (for kids not in the pool) carry more weight than parent referrals and I know several parents who, instead of referring themselves, pressured their teachers to do the referring. Not kosher!

The only referrals allowed should be teacher referrals. Parents could still do additional WISC testing but then show those scores to the teacher and the teacher can decide whether a referral is necessary.

ANY referral -- be it a teacher referral, a parent referral, or even a self-referral -- is treated the same way. One does not have more "weight" than another. Any referral initiates the process of the local school putting together a screening file (by the AART).

More information on the state regulations can be found at:
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/gifted_ed/faq.shtml

Referral is a direct procedure that enters a student into a school division's identification process. Referral of a student requires the school division to administer all assessments and reach an eligibility decision as specified in the division's approved local plan for the education the gifted. Referrals may be offered by parents, teachers, community members, administrators, peers, or the student him or herself.

The problem no one mentions is that teacher referrals (for kids not in the pool) carry more weight than parent referrals and I know several parents who, instead of referring themselves, pressured their teachers to do the referring. Not kosher!

The only referrals allowed should be teacher referrals. Parents could still do additional WISC testing but then show those scores to the teacher and the teacher can decide whether a referral is necessary.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, wouldn't want them contaminated with level III children or gasp no leveled children ever. I can't believe the ability discrepancy at Great Falls or Colvin Run is very large.

It's absolutely not, which makes the whole AAP/GE separation even more bizarre and ridiculous. Most of the kids in Gen Ed tested just slightly below those in AAP. And before you ask, I know this because it's pretty openly discussed among the fed up Gen Ed parents, of which there are fewer and fewer as so many are parent referring their children into AAP. Don't want little Susie or Jimmy to be left out when all their friends are getting into AAP and they're left in (gasp) Gen Ed. There is little to no ability discrepancy at this school, making the whole concept of an "AAP Center" that much more foolish.

Anonymous wrote:Why not make it a one class rule? That would make more kids stay at base and then the LLIV class would be more of a level IV class.

Two classes per grade level provides for both differentiation and flexible grouping, and also provides options when That Kid and My Kid just cannot be in the same class together but they are in the same grade.

Anonymous wrote:Why not make it a one class rule? That would make more kids stay at base and then the LLIV class would be more of a level IV class.

Because then kids are with the same kids for each year of their entire elementary school experience. That's not a good idea.

Why not make it a one class rule? That would make more kids stay at base and then the LLIV class would be more of a level IV class.

Anonymous wrote:I think there should be a rule that if your school can sufficiently staff 2 classrooms with level IV children, that those children no longer are allowed to be bussed to another center.

+1 for those schools that have enough students for 2 classes per grade level

Yes, wouldn't want them contaminated with level III children or gasp no leveled children ever. I can't believe the ability discrepancy at Great Falls or Colvin Run is very large.

I agree with PPs but the level IV center should have separate AAP classes.

I agree with 16:41--there were about 40 kids identified from our school.

I think there should be a rule that if your school can sufficiently staff 2 classrooms with level IV children, that those children no longer are allowed to be bussed to another center.

Anonymous wrote:Not true. Parent referred kids don't need to have scores that have met the cut-off. All they need is a referral. However, if you want to say that all referred kids MUST have a WISC with the approved score, I agree. Too many kids are in AAP that have not shown (via some sort of test) that they belong. That needs to change.

I could just as easily argue that too many kids have shown no giftedness in behavior, and that needs to change. Some people want a system that can be gamed by prep, and some by gifted behavior. Rescaling will only result in more test prep, rather than better quality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not true. Parent referred kids don't need to have scores that have met the cut-off. All they need is a referral. However, if you want to say that all referred kids MUST have a WISC with the approved score, I agree. Too many kids are in AAP that have not shown (via some sort of test) that they belong. That needs to change.

It doesn't say they need to have scores that met the cut off, it says if they aren't in pool they need a really good GBRS or WISC score to get in, which is true.

+1

A parent referral does not mean that a child is automatically in AAP. A parent referral means that the local school creates a screening file, just like the local school creates a screening file for each student that is part of the 2nd grade pool. Each of the screening files is then evaluated by the local screening committee and, for those that pass that part of the process, the screening file is then forwarded on to the central screening committee for review and evaluation.

Anonymous wrote:Not true. Parent referred kids don't need to have scores that have met the cut-off. All they need is a referral. However, if you want to say that all referred kids MUST have a WISC with the approved score, I agree. Too many kids are in AAP that have not shown (via some sort of test) that they belong. That needs to change.

It doesn't say they need to have scores that met the cut off, it says if they aren't in pool they need a really good GBRS or WISC score to get in, which is true.