blackcat, I feel your frustration. FWIW, we've had similar experiences in advocating for our kids - both for gifted services and for help with special needs. I'd go ahead and fume for a few hours, and then just get back to business - do your research, think through what you want to say when you have your conference call, do some more research to be sure you can back up what your points are, and then remember to stay calm when you talk to the folks next week. After the conference call, write down what was said/decided upon in a brief and non-emotional email and send it around to whoever was in on the call. If you have follow-up questions, include them. It probably wouldn't hurt to just confirm what you discussed today re setting up a meeting next week via a brief email to the person you talked to.
Here are a few other things to consider:
She is 3-4 years ahead for reading comprehension (even though her score is only 94th percentile, that's what the test report says for reading level)
I do not have official statistics in front of me and I am not a person who believes you can describe every situation perfectly through testing ;), but just guessing here - I think it's possible that you might find being 3-4 years ahead in reading is at the 94th percentile. It's just been my experience in the classrooms my kids have been in that reading ability varies over a really wide spectrum. That's not downplaying your dd's ability or saying she shouldn't be in a HG magnet program - it's just something I wouldn't necessarily hold out on it's own as saying this one portion of this one test isn't representative of your dd.
Does it even make sense what she is saying? It seems to totally contradict their website!
Does it make sense in terms of saying a child with FSIQ 150 shouldn't be considered able enough to be accepted into the program, no. Does it make sense in terms of what she is saying about thier policy etc - that part I could follow. I'm not 100% surprised to hear there is a difference in what's stated on a website and what the staff is using for guidelines - websites can become outdated, or policies can change. Don't assume the staff is contradicting themselves or setting policy-on-the-fly, instead, print a copy of what the website states so you have it. In your conference call, when testing requirements and cut-offs are discussed, if something is said that is different than what's stated on the website or if the discussion becomes unclear, ask them to clarify - is the website correct? Restate it for them. If they say they've changed cut-offs for whatever reason, ask for the reason.
And most importantly, simply keep reminding them politely but firmly about your dd's WISC results. Point out the individual component scores if you need to (VCI, PRI) - and relate those to the ability to achieve in math/sciences and language arts. I'm guessing here that your dd's VCI and PRI are both 98th percentile - but even if they aren't your dd is *clearly* a very high IQ kid... just remember to yourself as you are advocating - there are quite likely a lot of kids already in the program who would not score as highly on the WISC. That's not something to say out loud or to argue as a reason your dd should be *in*, but it's something you need to remind yourself of as you advocate - speak with confidence. Your dd *has* the ability and she will most likely do very well in the program.
And a question from me - what achievement test are they looking at? WJ-III or something else? ITBS? When was it given? One tactic I've seen parents advocate for here and our school accommodate when a child has qualifying scores in either ability or achievement but is not quite up to the cut-off in the other area is that the school will retest with a different test, so you could ask for a different test if you wanted to. OTOH, I'd probably first try to simply ask her to be put in based on her ability scores.
Also curious - not sure I see it above - how far off from the cutoff is her 94th percentile in reading? Not in percentile (98th vs 94th) but in actual score? Is it possible (depends on the test) that missing only 1 or 2 questions could have put her that much lower in percentile? If so, you could that it's within expected error range (please note - that's not statistical, mathematically measured error - just "conversational this could have happened" error range!).
Let us know how your conference call goes -
polarbear
