But it is offensive to even suggest that some psychs would give out inflated scores. There is no way anyone has ever gamed this system. Every parent is ethical, as is every medical professional. ?

Anonymous wrote:We did not submit a WISC score with our appeal. We submitted a Stanford Binet.
There are other tests that are accepted other than the WISC such as CAS, Kaufman. How would the AAP office track those?

Probably in a similar way as they tracked WISC scores -- create a folder titled SB and enter the name of the psychologist and the score, create another folder for CAS and enter the name of the psychologist and score, etc.

We did not submit a WISC score with our appeal. We submitted a Stanford Binet.
There are other tests that are accepted other than the WISC such as CAS, Kaufman. How would the AAP office track those?

I know that there are already correlational studies between CogAT and WISC but it would be interesting for FCPS to do correlation studies for their own population.
Then again, those that been found eligible for AAP on the first round will not have usually have WISC scores. Missing data there.
There seems to be more scrutiny on those that get in on appeal, hence the notion of testers getting bribes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would FCPS AAP have meetings like that with a professional medical association?

Because the AAP office had been tracking not only WISC scores but the tester/psychologist who provided the report. They found a high number of WISC scores from a specific tester.

Okay let me think about this for a moment.

AAP office would only be getting WISCs with high scores, so how would they know that a certain tester is only giving out high test scores?

I have one kid with a high WISC score and one with an average score. Testing was done by the same psychologist. We did not submit the average WISC score to the AAP office.

I agree with you; the results would obviously be skewed as only the "high" WISC scores would be received by the central selection committee. I simply reported what AAP staff did a few years ago.

Maybe the problem is very high WISCs with mediocre CogAT, NNAT and GBRS. Say on appeal, Psychologist 1 submits 20 130-136 WISC reports, and the kids have, say, CogAT 128-130, NNAT 124-126, GBRS 11 or 12. And on appeal, Psychologist 2 submits a 20 WISC 138-142 reports where the kid has CogAT 105, NNAT 110, GBRS 7. Some of psychologist 2's scores could be legit (ADHD or LD kid, etc). But Psychologist 2's findings look very suspicious to the committee, and Psychologist 1's do not.

Anonymous wrote:Don't let the facts get in the way of your pre-formed opinion.

Don't get your pre-formed opinion influence your understanding of the facts.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your pre-formed opinion.

PP here. I'm not at all being defensive. I think that some PPs were being offensive alleging that bribing is occurring. Let's look at the facts:

This is what it says on the report:

Fact 1: Conversations with Northern Virginia Association of Clinical Psychologists are ongoing and they are working collaboratively with FCPS to ensure integrity of test results.

If I wasn't told about the suspicion of bribing, I would be taking this statement as what it is- they are ensuring integrity of results. You pretty much would do that with anything. That is standard report lingo. And I'm glad that FCPS does have relationships with other organizations as they should.


And for this statement:
Because the AAP office had been tracking not only WISC scores but the tester/psychologist who provided the report. They found a high number of WISC scores from a specific tester.

If I wasn't told about the suspicion of bribing, I would be taking this statement as- Oh, there is a specific tester that is most popular than other testers. Given that the AAP office is only getting results with high WISC scores, one cannot conclude that bribing is even occurring. The data collection is flawed to reach that conclusion. If I was shopping for testers and I can see the popularity of a specific tester based on volume of business, I would look into using this tester.

Wow. I'm blown away with how defensive some of you posters are. You want evidence? Here it is, FCPS document from 2015. Top of page 80.

It shows where FCPS has "acknowledged" an "ongoing" relationship with an "association."


http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/pdfs/aapac/1415/AnnualReport1415.pdf

If you believe all medical professionals are 100% ethical, then you are an idiot. I don't have time to give you all the examples of unethical medical professionals, but watch the news and you'll see plenty of examples every day.

The only reason I can possibly think that you are this defensive is that you think this somehow makes your snowflake less "special."

I'm sorry, but the reality is that there are many unhinged parents in this region, and many are willing to do whatever it takes to get their children into AAP - whether the kid belongs there or not. That results in the overall dumbing down of the program. 20% of all kids in this area are not gifted. I'm sorry, they just aren't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would FCPS AAP have meetings like that with a professional medical association?

Because the AAP office had been tracking not only WISC scores but the tester/psychologist who provided the report. They found a high number of WISC scores from a specific tester.

Okay let me think about this for a moment.

AAP office would only be getting WISCs with high scores, so how would they know that a certain tester is only giving out high test scores?

I have one kid with a high WISC score and one with an average score. Testing was done by the same psychologist. We did not submit the average WISC score to the AAP office.

I agree with you; the results would obviously be skewed as only the "high" WISC scores would be received by the central selection committee. I simply reported what AAP staff did a few years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. More holes than Swiss cheese. To begin with, you have to wait a year between tests. This isn't something you can just turn around and get a second, third and fourth opinion about opinion about. Second of all, testers should be charging within $100 of GMU. I've never heard of someone charging $900 for AAP testing vs $450 for GMU. That would stand out as very strange. Also, who does this, and then goes and tells people,"Larla's only in AAP because I bribed a psychologist to give her a high score. She's not really gifted. I just put one over on the AAP screening committee." No one "acknowledges" that there kid doesn't belong in AAP.

And no, I don't think it's "commonplace" for people to pay $900 for a WISC (vs $450 for GMU) because there are testers (PhDs, BTW) "selling" 140 WISCs. Even if all psychologists were completely lacking in professional ethics (and I hope that is not the case), as PP points out, FCPS does track this and flag it when one psychologist is regularly giving high WISCs out of line with the other data on kids. It's a great way to get your credentials pulled.

AAP Troll score: 2 (generally would be Troll score 4, but we expect more from AAP trolls).

Their, not there, pp. Hope your kid is smarter.

They did wait a year between tests. First test done in first grade, second done in second grade.

The rest of your post is just your outrage over something that FCPS has already acknowledged is happening, thus the ongoing relationship with the medical association. Sure, medical professionals shouldn't be unethical. Are there also unicorns in your world?

Please list the name of the two psychologists, if true. Let me guess...you won't.

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. More holes than Swiss cheese. To begin with, you have to wait a year between tests. This isn't something you can just turn around and get a second, third and fourth opinion about opinion about. Second of all, testers should be charging within $100 of GMU. I've never heard of someone charging $900 for AAP testing vs $450 for GMU. That would stand out as very strange. Also, who does this, and then goes and tells people,"Larla's only in AAP because I bribed a psychologist to give her a high score. She's not really gifted. I just put one over on the AAP screening committee." No one "acknowledges" that there kid doesn't belong in AAP.

And no, I don't think it's "commonplace" for people to pay $900 for a WISC (vs $450 for GMU) because there are testers (PhDs, BTW) "selling" 140 WISCs. Even if all psychologists were completely lacking in professional ethics (and I hope that is not the case), as PP points out, FCPS does track this and flag it when one psychologist is regularly giving high WISCs out of line with the other data on kids. It's a great way to get your credentials pulled.

AAP Troll score: 2 (generally would be Troll score 4, but we expect more from AAP trolls).

Their, not there, pp. Hope your kid is smarter.

They did wait a year between tests. First test done in first grade, second done in second grade.

The rest of your post is just your outrage over something that FCPS has already acknowledged is happening, thus the ongoing relationship with the medical association. Sure, medical professionals shouldn't be unethical. Are there also unicorns in your world?

I <3 grammar police. Really. Please cite to where FCPS has "acknowledged" that it is "commonplace" for people to bribe private psychologists for high IQ scores. Or to any evidence of an "ongoing relationship" between FCPS and a "medical association" concerning AAP testing. I'll wait for you to post the think showing that you haven't just created some elaborate conspiracy theory out of thin air.

And yes, in my world, most medical professionals are ethical. Does that mean I get a unicorn?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would FCPS AAP have meetings like that with a professional medical association?

Because the AAP office had been tracking not only WISC scores but the tester/psychologist who provided the report. They found a high number of WISC scores from a specific tester.

Okay let me think about this for a moment.

AAP office would only be getting WISCs with high scores, so how would they know that a certain tester is only giving out high test scores?

I have one kid with a high WISC score and one with an average score. Testing was done by the same psychologist. We did not submit the average WISC score to the AAP office.

Yep. More holes than Swiss cheese. To begin with, you have to wait a year between tests. This isn't something you can just turn around and get a second, third and fourth opinion about opinion about. Second of all, testers should be charging within $100 of GMU. I've never heard of someone charging $900 for AAP testing vs $450 for GMU. That would stand out as very strange. Also, who does this, and then goes and tells people,"Larla's only in AAP because I bribed a psychologist to give her a high score. She's not really gifted. I just put one over on the AAP screening committee." No one "acknowledges" that there kid doesn't belong in AAP.

And no, I don't think it's "commonplace" for people to pay $900 for a WISC (vs $450 for GMU) because there are testers (PhDs, BTW) "selling" 140 WISCs. Even if all psychologists were completely lacking in professional ethics (and I hope that is not the case), as PP points out, FCPS does track this and flag it when one psychologist is regularly giving high WISCs out of line with the other data on kids. It's a great way to get your credentials pulled.

AAP Troll score: 2 (generally would be Troll score 4, but we expect more from AAP trolls).

Their, not there, pp. Hope your kid is smarter.

They did wait a year between tests. First test done in first grade, second done in second grade.

The rest of your post is just your outrage over something that FCPS has already acknowledged is happening, thus the ongoing relationship with the medical association. Sure, medical professionals shouldn't be unethical. Are there also unicorns in your world?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a falsehood. I know for a fact that a close friend got a wisc in mid 120s in first grade. Asked around, went to a different psych., paid roughly double, and got the 99% she paid for. She acknowledged this, and has since referred people to same psych.

Just because you know one student who went to one tester and didn't get a high score doesn't mean this practice isn't commonplace.

Please list the name of the two psychologists, if true. Let me guess...you won't.

Yep. More holes than Swiss cheese. To begin with, you have to wait a year between tests. This isn't something you can just turn around and get a second, third and fourth opinion about opinion about. Second of all, testers should be charging within $100 of GMU. I've never heard of someone charging $900 for AAP testing vs $450 for GMU. That would stand out as very strange. Also, who does this, and then goes and tells people,"Larla's only in AAP because I bribed a psychologist to give her a high score. She's not really gifted. I just put one over on the AAP screening committee." No one "acknowledges" that there kid doesn't belong in AAP.

And no, I don't think it's "commonplace" for people to pay $900 for a WISC (vs $450 for GMU) because there are testers (PhDs, BTW) "selling" 140 WISCs. Even if all psychologists were completely lacking in professional ethics (and I hope that is not the case), as PP points out, FCPS does track this and flag it when one psychologist is regularly giving high WISCs out of line with the other data on kids. It's a great way to get your credentials pulled.

AAP Troll score: 2 (generally would be Troll score 4, but we expect more from AAP trolls).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would FCPS AAP have meetings like that with a professional medical association?

Because the AAP office had been tracking not only WISC scores but the tester/psychologist who provided the report. They found a high number of WISC scores from a specific tester.

Which tester? Last name starts with the letter...?

The tester's name was not shared by AAP staff. Sorry.