PP: My thinking is it should be an OR test:

Test scores above a certain level (e.g., CogAT's above a certain level, perhaps all scores above 135 + NNAT above 130)

or

GBRS above a certain point (14?)


student is in.


Less than the peak, a sliding scale....GBRS of 12 and 130 is in or something

50% - Test (NNAT & CogAt)
20% - Report Card
20% - Teachers evaluation, recommendation, opinion, input whatever you want to call (I say do away with that numbered rating)
10% - Others such as 'school' work sample, recommendation letters from others, parent letter/input, other scores (DRA, etc), etc

When appealing, something like

40% - WISC
20% - NNAT & CogAt
15% - Report
15% - Teacher input
10% - Others

agreed. there should be a weight attached to these different criteria. that will help committe members too. otherwise committee decisions become intutive, subjective based on the individual committee members background and experience.

Anonymous wrote:11:24 I disagree that teacher recommendation is secondary. throughout their cademic career, they have to rely on teacher's recommendation.

Not as a primary source. For example when applying for colleges, I don't believe teachers recommendation letters are the primary source in general.
Test score like SAT and transcript are the primary, then all the other information are considered.

11:24 I disagree that teacher recommendation is secondary. throughout their cademic career, they have to rely on teacher's recommendation.

Anonymous wrote:Since the list is being updated -- strongly suspect DC #5, #14, and #16, are the same DC who came up at different times in the thread. (VCI 136 on #5's profile was a typo from DC's Darling Parent, should have been 138)

As well as 2 & 23 and 6 & 11. Thanks for updating the list anyway.

Anonymous wrote: This is why there is increasing weight given to the GBRS and demonstrated classroom behaviors and less weight to test scores.

Is this a fact, where did you get this information?

GBRS stands for "Gifted Behaviors Rating Scale". Maybe they'll change the name of the form, too later.
I personally think more weight should be on the report card itself.
Combination of report card and test scores basically cover everything.
Test scores show natural talent and intelligence and report card shows the behavior performance achievement in classroom.
Teachers recommendation/opinion should be used supplementally IMO.

One Thrity Eight, not 13-smiley. Not sure why website did that

Since the list is being updated -- strongly suspect DC #5, #14, and #16, are the same DC who came up at different times in the thread. (VCI 136 on #5's profile was a typo from DC's Darling Parent, should have been 138)

The program is evolving from GT to AAP. They are looking for kids who are able to be more successful and productive in an accelerated environment. They may or may not necessarily be "gifted". This is why there is increasing weight given to the GBRS and demonstrated classroom behaviors and less weight to test scores.

I know, I know, GBRS are subjective. But it is widely accepted as a reasonable way to gauge and identify kids who's needs are not being met in the GE environment and who will benefit from acceleration.

There are alot of great Wisc scores being reported here. And I think those probably do definately get the kids a second look and a better chance at eligibility.

Anonymous wrote:PP I think AAP is for kids who will naturally succeed with advanced courses. It may not necessarily be for GT kids. So, they may not pay attention to GT kids who may need special guidance because of their shyness or for some other reasons. my 2c.

I'm not sure about this statement either. They changed the name to AAP, but what they value the most is still GT/IQ if you see what they look at - NNAT/CogAT, WISC, and GBRS. Otherwise, the report card should be one of the primary criteria, if not the most important criteria.

There's big difference between Introvert and Shyness.

Introvert kids are not shy. They're are very confident with their thoughts. They are deep thinkers who wants to finish their thoughts before answer the questions (usually better). I read from many gifted web site that trained GT teachers know how to group them and boost their ability.

VCI measures crystallized intelligence while PRI measures fluid intelligence. VCI is more about learned information while PRI is more about inductive and deductive reasoning. VCI reflects environmental and social influences while PRI reflects genetic influence. From IQ perspective, some people say that PRI is a better indicator of the child's inner ability. Not sure what's FCPS's take on this.

Regardless, personally I don't think it makes any sense to favor VCI vs. PRI.

PP I think AAP is for kids who will naturally succeed with advanced courses. It may not necessarily be for GT kids. So, they may not pay attention to GT kids who may need special guidance because of their shyness or for some other reasons. my 2c.

Anonymous wrote:

Is there a specific reason AAP is weighing more on Verbal than Non-verbal?

I heard this, but not sure if this is really true.