I tend to find myself in quite a few "statistically unlikely" situations. For example, most of our development is in the GT program. Hmmm... So yes, all bets could be off, and there could be 3-5 equal peers. On the flip side, after scoring in the 99.9th percentile for reading, I was shocked to hear the school say "we have lots of kids that test like that". I'm fairly certain their translation was "we have lots of kids that are above level". The 99.9th score was meaningless to them...but they do have "lots of kids" above the 90th, even the 95th, and to them they are a common group. It took us years to convince them that his math (much higher than reading) was truly unique.
Totally OT, but this comment of yours was enlightening for me. We, too, have a neighborhood and region with a statistically unlikely percentage of kids in GT programming, but we got a totally different response when we gave dd12's test scores (IQ and WJ) to her district when she was in 2nd grade. The district GT coordinator at the time told me that the higher-ups in the district were "philosophically opposed" to meeting her needs, she wasn't going to last long in public school, and asked if I had considered homeschooling her. Either she had a better understanding of what the scores meant than your district did
with your ds' (which are certainly higher than my dd's!) or our neighborhood isn't that skewed, the identification is what is skewed.
In re to the OP, I too wouldn't be hugely worried about that one lower area especially if you feel that it is an inaccurate representation of your dd. I'm begining to wonder if my younger dd's slower processing speed scores on the WISC are truly slower processing or a child who made a lot of mistakes on the visual scanning required for that part of the test (more likely in her case). My older dd is clearly slower than able (what her WISC shows), but that type of pattern doesn't seem to be the case for my youngest despite that being what it looks like on the WISC. I wish that the testers had told us what that test looked like (lots of mistakes, looking back and forth at the key, or just slow coding, etc.)
