Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^There have been numerous studies that have shown that teachers are less likely to "see" giftedness in black or Hispanic children than they are for similar white and Asian children.

PP who appealed. I didn't want to say this, but yeah. This.

Our school also has one annual goal, reducing the performance gap for black children. We have a small black population like 5 percent, so this might play a role. My kid was performing well on the i-ready and I imagine they saw a compliant, good student who they could use for that purpose. I don't think that fair since my child has a right to an education based on her own needs and a right to access whatever services she's entitled to that is offered by the county. I sniffed that out in my conversations with people at the school, but it's a good reminder to black or latino parents. We have to be super careful.

Another fun, awesome thing about the black experience in America. Sigh.

you are incoherent, and make no sense. you might as well just spare your explanation.

I had no trouble understanding her. Maybe you should read it again.

I couldn't understand either! Maybe its just me

I can explain it as a FCPS teacher. The school was hoarding their bright black children. The admin made the decision that looking better was more important than giving up 25 percent of your black children population to an AAP center. It's crazy but happens all the time.

Listen, FCPS is a machine. And in terms of understanding why a kid who would benefit and qualify for AAP is not allowed to go...there is a reason. It's because that kid has value to the base. Which is ironically the reason why the child needs AAP...

And that is why the appeal process and WISC testing needs to be promoted more. I teach at an upper elementary grade where the pressure isn't so bad. I have sent so, so many children to the center who qualified based on test scores, but were tanked on the GBRS.

I understood gbrs to be decided by a panel. Are they discussing things of this sort or is everyone silently making the same calculation?

They may meet and discuss it has a panel but the AART fills it out. I know my DC teacher was shocked when I showed her the GBRS. It clearly wasn't what she recommended. Additionally the work samples submitted were so bad it had to be intentional.

Anonymous wrote:
Sorry In. Somebody said WISC 121 is not appeal worthy but with good scores previously it gives them another look and the score is still decent. For somebody just out because of GBRS this is a good enough score if combined with other high scores. The tester said she had seen quite a few get in on appeal with 120+ WISC scores. Also threw in the Woodcock Johnson math which were also decent, better than the WISC.

Anonymous wrote:Reposting from old thread:
ORIGINAL - DC 2
NNAT - 108
CoGAT - 118
GBRS - 15

APPEAL
WISC - 121 but VCI only 96
DRA - 38 (2nd Grade)
Doing advanced Math
Several iready scores ABOVE 2nd grade level
New work samples NOT provided by teacher

In or Out: OUT

In hindsight, I should NOT have submitted WISC -but relied on DRA, Advanced Math identification and iReady.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^I'm pretty sure that my kids' school is the exact opposite, where the homeroom teacher sets the number on her own. My child's panel only included the homeroom teacher, the principal, and the AART. It did not include my child's math teacher or reading teacher. The principal doesn't really interact much with the kids, and the AART has fairly limited contact, so the score must mostly come from the homeroom teacher.

We got rejected because of the GBRS 6, just posted above. Also had weak work samples in the original package. On appeal put in 5 strong work samples, 4 with perfect scores on algebra type questions and one strong writing sample, and surely this helped. Also included 5 letters of recommendation. Think this also helped get in on appeal.

Anonymous wrote:^I'm pretty sure that my kids' school is the exact opposite, where the homeroom teacher sets the number on her own. My child's panel only included the homeroom teacher, the principal, and the AART. It did not include my child's math teacher or reading teacher. The principal doesn't really interact much with the kids, and the AART has fairly limited contact, so the score must mostly come from the homeroom teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NNAT 140
CoGat 136
GBRS 6 which was ridiculous.

Grade good, mostly 4's.
DRA not great 2.6 but improving pretty fast.

Not in.

WISC 121
Woodcock-Johnson IV for Math 125

The appeals scores were both in the Very High Range but not extremely high, but good enough given his other scores. Just want to give hope to others who get a ridiculously low GBRS score. I was shocked he did not get in and had never even bothered to get a copy of his package before he was rejected. This is my 4th of 4 in, and since he is very smart and outgoing was not worried and thought had good enough scores initially. A bit lower than his other siblings due to the age adjustment, but not enough to get worried about.

Also found out in this process that the Woodcock-Johnson IV can be taken every 6 months, so could have been used again for the following year which I was bracing for. WJ has a math and verbal component and you can just submit one or both results.

Word of advice to those that have good scores and are interested in Level IV, just get your package after it is submitted so at least you have an idea could have a problem if the GBRS is low, especially for boys.

Good luck to all, glad this process is over with for us unless God has a surprise on the way for us in the future, now on to the college application craziness.

I'm so confused. Did you child get in on appeal or not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^There have been numerous studies that have shown that teachers are less likely to "see" giftedness in black or Hispanic children than they are for similar white and Asian children.

PP who appealed. I didn't want to say this, but yeah. This.

Our school also has one annual goal, reducing the performance gap for black children. We have a small black population like 5 percent, so this might play a role. My kid was performing well on the i-ready and I imagine they saw a compliant, good student who they could use for that purpose. I don't think that fair since my child has a right to an education based on her own needs and a right to access whatever services she's entitled to that is offered by the county. I sniffed that out in my conversations with people at the school, but it's a good reminder to black or latino parents. We have to be super careful.

Another fun, awesome thing about the black experience in America. Sigh.

you are incoherent, and make no sense. you might as well just spare your explanation.

I had no trouble understanding her. Maybe you should read it again.

I couldn't understand either! Maybe its just me

I can explain it as a FCPS teacher. The school was hoarding their bright black children. The admin made the decision that looking better was more important than giving up 25 percent of your black children population to an AAP center. It's crazy but happens all the time.

Listen, FCPS is a machine. And in terms of understanding why a kid who would benefit and qualify for AAP is not allowed to go...there is a reason. It's because that kid has value to the base. Which is ironically the reason why the child needs AAP...

And that is why the appeal process and WISC testing needs to be promoted more. I teach at an upper elementary grade where the pressure isn't so bad. I have sent so, so many children to the center who qualified based on test scores, but were tanked on the GBRS.

I understood gbrs to be decided by a panel. Are they discussing things of this sort or is everyone silently making the same calculation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^There have been numerous studies that have shown that teachers are less likely to "see" giftedness in black or Hispanic children than they are for similar white and Asian children.

PP who appealed. I didn't want to say this, but yeah. This.

Our school also has one annual goal, reducing the performance gap for black children. We have a small black population like 5 percent, so this might play a role. My kid was performing well on the i-ready and I imagine they saw a compliant, good student who they could use for that purpose. I don't think that fair since my child has a right to an education based on her own needs and a right to access whatever services she's entitled to that is offered by the county. I sniffed that out in my conversations with people at the school, but it's a good reminder to black or latino parents. We have to be super careful.

Another fun, awesome thing about the black experience in America. Sigh.

you are incoherent, and make no sense. you might as well just spare your explanation.

I had no trouble understanding her. Maybe you should read it again.

I couldn't understand either! Maybe its just me

Didn't make sense to me either. Did she want her child in or not?