Update: Rebuttal to GWR and NORA/NOREP - 06/02/13 07:53 PM
GWR found not gifted and recommendation was to remain in the regular classroom. We're signing we disagree and this is our rebuttal as it stands now. Any advice on where it is weak or how to make it stronger? We're in PA. Thanks!!
We again respectfully disagree with the findings and recommendations in N’s GWR. First, we question the validity and subjectivity of the teachers’ evaluation tool. That was where his lowest score was on the matrix, and if he would have been scored by the teachers above 80% in any other area, he would have enough points to be identified. Also, in Chapter 16 it states that students with an IQ less than 130 are eligible for gifted education when other educational criteria in the child's profile strongly indicate gifted ability. We feel the matrix used by the school district does not take into real consideration some of the other educational criteria that should be used to indicate gifted ability set forth in Chapter 16, and is therefore more restrictive than the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16. For instance, N showed early and measured use of high level thinking skills and intense academic interests. We were only able to bring this into the report via one or two questions on the parent checklist and one statement in the GWR. Also, the reports on his acquisition and retention of knowledge contained in the GWR were anecdotal and not measured by any standard such as curriculum-based assessments or rating scales. These things were not fully investigated or taken into account when doing N’s final evaluation. Finally, at the meeting on April 26, we were assured that even if N was not identified and entered into the gifted program, he would receive the same services and we were assured that the school would make sure N would continue to make steady progress and make a full year’s worth of academic growth each school year. We were disheartened to find out at the meeting on May 23 that he did not make that year’s worth of growth in reading this year – despite coming into first grade with a DRA level of 16, he is only leaving first grade with a DRA level of 20. We question why, if instruction in the regular classroom including placement in the highest reading group, was not enough for him to grow a full year in first grade, it is assumed that he will make a full-year’s worth of growth in second grade with those same accommodations. For those reasons, we think N should qualify for services above and beyond those offered in the regular classroom
We again respectfully disagree with the findings and recommendations in N’s GWR. First, we question the validity and subjectivity of the teachers’ evaluation tool. That was where his lowest score was on the matrix, and if he would have been scored by the teachers above 80% in any other area, he would have enough points to be identified. Also, in Chapter 16 it states that students with an IQ less than 130 are eligible for gifted education when other educational criteria in the child's profile strongly indicate gifted ability. We feel the matrix used by the school district does not take into real consideration some of the other educational criteria that should be used to indicate gifted ability set forth in Chapter 16, and is therefore more restrictive than the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16. For instance, N showed early and measured use of high level thinking skills and intense academic interests. We were only able to bring this into the report via one or two questions on the parent checklist and one statement in the GWR. Also, the reports on his acquisition and retention of knowledge contained in the GWR were anecdotal and not measured by any standard such as curriculum-based assessments or rating scales. These things were not fully investigated or taken into account when doing N’s final evaluation. Finally, at the meeting on April 26, we were assured that even if N was not identified and entered into the gifted program, he would receive the same services and we were assured that the school would make sure N would continue to make steady progress and make a full year’s worth of academic growth each school year. We were disheartened to find out at the meeting on May 23 that he did not make that year’s worth of growth in reading this year – despite coming into first grade with a DRA level of 16, he is only leaving first grade with a DRA level of 20. We question why, if instruction in the regular classroom including placement in the highest reading group, was not enough for him to grow a full year in first grade, it is assumed that he will make a full-year’s worth of growth in second grade with those same accommodations. For those reasons, we think N should qualify for services above and beyond those offered in the regular classroom