Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. The committee goes in sometimes with the best intentions, sometimes with biases and whether the score is high or low, they don't always get it right. To suggest they always do is naive and to suggest they never do is unreasonable. It's a shame if the screening committee puts too much stock in it for that very reason. It should be one data point that is weighed equally with scores, work samples, recommendations, questionnaires, awards, and/or any outside tests submitted.

Weighed equally with testing? Sure. Weighed equally with such subjective criteria? Uh, no.

You think GBRS isn't subjective? Uh no . . .

Anonymous wrote:^ you are choosing to trust one professional over another.

It turns out your kid was 2E, and whatever intervention you're doing is helping. So you are trusting the doctors, but did they prescribe meds? Not passing judgement, but if your kid is now on medication, that helps the kid focus, and that would help any kid focus, and give their best.

Child was diagnosed last year with a full psychoeducational eval and in working with the pediatrician as well. Not medicated, and no current plans to do so, per discussions with pediatrician.

^ you are choosing to trust one professional over another.

It turns out your kid was 2E, and whatever intervention you're doing is helping. So you are trusting the doctors, but did they prescribe meds? Not passing judgement, but if your kid is now on medication, that helps the kid focus, and that would help any kid focus, and give their best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're assuming that the classroom teacher, AART, etc. know how to identify gifted baheviors. That is not always the case. They're not necessarily behaviors many lay people assume they are but one would hope educators would know that and know how to spot them.

So you think an AART has no training in spotting gifted behaviors?? Come on. They’re not just plucked off the street and left to figure out how to do their job.

Exactly. Sure, I think my kid is smart. But I don't presume to know more than my kid's AART when it comes to spotting gifted behavior. And this is because: (1) I have no degrees, training, or hands on experience in elementary education (other than having once been a child myself); and (2) I lack the ability to be objective when it comes to my own kid.

I do know my own kid more than them. No one else had "concerns" because kiddo was performing on grade school, but I knew something was going on based on inconsistent test results - and turned out my kiddo is 2E with ADHD. I don't really "blame" them though, I agree 2E was a tough nut to crack to figure out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're assuming that the classroom teacher, AART, etc. know how to identify gifted baheviors. That is not always the case. They're not necessarily behaviors many lay people assume they are but one would hope educators would know that and know how to spot them.

So you think an AART has no training in spotting gifted behaviors?? Come on. They’re not just plucked off the street and left to figure out how to do their job.

Exactly. Sure, I think my kid is smart. But I don't presume to know more than my kid's AART when it comes to spotting gifted behavior. And this is because: (1) I have no degrees, training, or hands on experience in elementary education (other than having once been a child myself); and (2) I lack the ability to be objective when it comes to my own kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. The committee goes in sometimes with the best intentions, sometimes with biases and whether the score is high or low, they don't always get it right. To suggest they always do is naive and to suggest they never do is unreasonable. It's a shame if the screening committee puts too much stock in it for that very reason. It should be one data point that is weighed equally with scores, work samples, recommendations, questionnaires, awards, and/or any outside tests submitted.

Weighed equally with testing? Sure. Weighed equally with such subjective criteria? Uh, no.

Had to laugh at this. I parent referred my third grader after a finding of inelibility in second grade, which was not reversed on appeal. In the appeal package last year, I submitted a borderline WISC and at least three letters of recommendation. Looking back, I'm sure the letters of recommendation did nothing to advance my case. This year, I didn't submit a single one. If they find my kid belongs in the program, it's not going to be because my kid's former babysitters and piano teacher said so.

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. The committee goes in sometimes with the best intentions, sometimes with biases and whether the score is high or low, they don't always get it right. To suggest they always do is naive and to suggest they never do is unreasonable. It's a shame if the screening committee puts too much stock in it for that very reason. It should be one data point that is weighed equally with scores, work samples, recommendations, questionnaires, awards, and/or any outside tests submitted.

Weighed equally with testing? Sure. Weighed equally with such subjective criteria? Uh, no.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. The committee goes in sometimes with the best intentions, sometimes with biases and whether the score is high or low, they don't always get it right. To suggest they always do is naive and to suggest they never do is unreasonable. It's a shame if the screening committee puts too much stock in it for that very reason. It should be one data point that is weighed equally with scores, work samples, recommendations, questionnaires, awards, and/or any outside tests submitted.

It is universally understood that the local committee is either:

-great at identifying gifted behaviors if you're kid got a high gbrs

-horrible at identifying gifted behaviors if your kid got a low gbrs

Anonymous wrote:You're assuming that the classroom teacher, AART, etc. know how to identify gifted baheviors. That is not always the case. They're not necessarily behaviors many lay people assume they are but one would hope educators would know that and know how to spot them.

So you think an AART has no training in spotting gifted behaviors?? Come on. They’re not just plucked off the street and left to figure out how to do their job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the actual form:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/forms/AAPGiftedBehaviorRatingScale_0.pdf

The comments the teachers make in answering the questions on the form are more important than the number assigned. It's more about describing the way the child acts during the school day and how the child interacts with and applies new ideas and concepts than it is about a "score" expressed in a number.

To be accurate, it is more the depth and breadth of the comments. The local committee is prohibited from putting anything negative in the comments section. We always see parents on these boards saying how they have a glowing set of comments for their kids but the GBRS rating is meh. There MUST be comments and they MUST be positive. But if the comments are few and not really deep and wide, that speaks volumes.

Anonymous wrote:Here's the actual form:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/forms/AAPGiftedBehaviorRatingScale_0.pdf

The comments the teachers make in answering the questions on the form are more important than the number assigned. It's more about describing the way the child acts during the school day and how the child interacts with and applies new ideas and concepts than it is about a "score" expressed in a number.

Here's the actual form:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/forms/AAPGiftedBehaviorRatingScale_0.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're assuming that the classroom teacher, AART, etc. know how to identify gifted baheviors. That is not always the case. They're not necessarily behaviors many lay people assume they are but one would hope educators would know that and know how to spot them.

Have you seen the top sheet for the GBRS evaluation? There is list of specific traits that are evaluated in each of the four categories. I'm not saying every evaluation is perfect, but the evaluators have some built in guidance of what to look for. It's not like they're just assigning number scores at random.

What are the specific traits, give examples?

Anonymous wrote:You're assuming that the classroom teacher, AART, etc. know how to identify gifted baheviors. That is not always the case. They're not necessarily behaviors many lay people assume they are but one would hope educators would know that and know how to spot them.

Have you seen the top sheet for the GBRS evaluation? There is list of specific traits that are evaluated in each of the four categories. I'm not saying every evaluation is perfect, but the evaluators have some built in guidance of what to look for. It's not like they're just assigning number scores at random.