Anonymous wrote:Are we talking the truly gifted or the AAP? Are they the same?
Anonymous wrote:sounds fishy to me. We did nothing related to school work, but here are some work samples? Of what, completed puzzles?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the former teacher is no longer teaching, then yes get a letter of recommendation!
Yes, the teacher is no longer teaching and was never involved in AAP or testing or anything of the kind., He only worked with DS on fun mind problems that were nothing like the tests or schoolwork. That's really why I am hesitant. DS did well with the teacher because he enjoyed the puzzles and other games. But, I do not want to create the impression among the committee members that this was just tutoring, either for school or the tests, because it wasn't. Should I include a letter from him or not? How about samples of the problems they worked on?
Anonymous wrote:Honesty is the best, I am certain that all the kids who found eligible were prepared for the tests one way or another, even with the new FxAT, no exception.
Anonymous wrote:Do you think the kids who got in the AAP are truly brighter than the kids with IQ 130 or above who are appealing?
There are so many false positives and false negatives in this AAP process. I think not letting a kid in with a high IQ because of a low GBRS that can be caused by bias or favoritism is a sad thing.
Anonymous wrote:If the former teacher is no longer teaching, then yes get a letter of recommendation!
Anonymous wrote:Honesty is the best, I am certain that all the kids who found eligible were prepared for the tests one way or another, even with the new FxAT, no exception.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Subjective criteria is just that, subject to bias. An iq test is completely objective, and not subject to any bias. Wisc is best indicator of intelligence. PP, you sound like a parent whose kid is in aap as a result of subjective criteria. My kid is in aap with a 16 GBRS, 99% CogAT and 155 NNAT. Kid is in 6th grade aap, fwiw. As for Wisc, let's just say, again, the 99%. iow, my kid is a 1%er and actually belongs in aap. Most of DCs classmates probably have only average IQs and don't really belong. Wisc 130 plus belong in aap.
You need to be more careful when you are creating fictitious data. The current 6th graders were given the NNAT, not the NNAT 2 that is currently used. The highest possible score on the NNAT was 150, so a 155 is impossible.
It's bad enough when people feel like flashing a kid's scores will make them sound more credible, but it's even worse when those scores are completely made up. [/quote
DC is 6th grade, and NNAT was a 155. Not the NNAT2. Actually, DC was given NNAT twice, once in KG and again in 2nd along with the cogat, that is how the process used to be. Now it is NNAT in 1st and cogat in 2nd. Why would I lie about DCs scores?
If that is so, then your DC did not get into AAP in 2nd grade. My DC is also in 6th, gave the NNAT in 2008 when it had a max score of 150. The new NNAT with a max possible of 160 was introduced in 2010.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Subjective criteria is just that, subject to bias. An iq test is completely objective, and not subject to any bias. Wisc is best indicator of intelligence. PP, you sound like a parent whose kid is in aap as a result of subjective criteria. My kid is in aap with a 16 GBRS, 99% CogAT and 155 NNAT. Kid is in 6th grade aap, fwiw. As for Wisc, let's just say, again, the 99%. iow, my kid is a 1%er and actually belongs in aap. Most of DCs classmates probably have only average IQs and don't really belong. Wisc 130 plus belong in aap.
You need to be more careful when you are creating fictitious data. The current 6th graders were given the NNAT, not the NNAT 2 that is currently used. The highest possible score on the NNAT was 150, so a 155 is impossible.
It's bad enough when people feel like flashing a kid's scores will make them sound more credible, but it's even worse when those scores are completely made up.