<p>Hi All!
My son was recently diagnosed with a condition that allows him extra time.
Does anyone have any experience with how much the extra time improves scores
on average? He scored in the 89th percentile on a practice PSAT last year WITHOUT extra time. After his diagnosis he was allowed extra time on the ACT practice test and scored in the 99th percentile. Wondering how he is likely to do on his next PSAT.
Has anyone's child taken the PSAT with and without? Thanks so much!</p>
<p>Having extra time on the ACT or SAT is not meant to improve test scores. It is meant to give students with disabilities an even playing field. For example, a student that has a reading disabilities takes longer to read. </p>
<p>It seems like your son did very well without the extra time, I am sure his score will increase.</p>
<p>Extra time will definitely improve the scores of some people. For instance, my husband has a learning disability that causes him to read really slowly, but it wasn’t diagnosed until he was 28. His SAT scores weren’t great, despite having a 147 IQ. I’d bet serious money that he got most questions right that he answered, but simply ran out of time due to his reading style. Now, someone who doesn’t know the material isn’t going to benefit from the extra time.</p>
<p>Just so you know, my husband went on to get his master’s in engineering, and is currently employed at a nuclear power plant. Part of me wants to throttle my in-laws for not realizing he had a problem and getting him help as a child, but his LD hasn’t stopped him from getting an education and having a good job. He just knows he has to work twice as hard as everyone else, but he’s had to do that all his life. Clearly, your son is a smart kid, and he can go on to have a successful career, too.</p>
<p>I don’t have a child that this pertained to, but my best friend does. In his case, his counselor recommended not taking advantage of the increased time. He has aspbergers. She felt that,he specifically, would have more anxiety with a longer time and would potentially spend that time changing answers. In this case, a counselor who knew him well was a great benefit because he did better on the second ACT withiut extended time. My gf hadn’t considered this aspect but when suggested, agreed that was a very probable outcome…my point, I guess, is that it would be specific I the individual.
Congratulations…your son has done very well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>??? The system is so broke!</p>
<p>Do students have to indicate on college apps that they were given extra time?</p>
<p>Our D was diagnosed with ADHD in high school. While we were wondering whether to petition for extra time, a wise friend told of his own experience with dyslexia. He had a tough time in high school, and attended a second-tier state university, but as he put it: “I never checked the box.” He never asked for extra time because he knew he would not get extra time in the workplace. He is now a top-notch teacher and researcher. We decided that not checking the box was the best route for our D. Buttressed by nothing more than an awareness of her weaknesses, D got a very high score the next time she took the SAT. The best part is that she entered college never questioning whether she got there on her own. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you mean the student literally does not know the material at all, then I could agree, but there are varying degrees of knowledge (and different ways to approach problems). Suppose that the student is asked to find the roots of x^2 - 7x + 12 = 0. The bright kid who has done lots of practice problems will immediately see that it factors as (x-3)(x-4) = 0 so x = 3 or 4. The kid who remembers the quadratic formula grinds out x = [-b +/- sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}]/2a. Finally, the kid who cannot do either of the above, but knows basic algebra, can plug in the multiple choice answers until finding the pair that works. Extra time saves that kid. </p>
<p>One problem with extra time is that it can be a very blunt instrument. Someone with mild ADHD (as our D) could be given time and a half while someone with essentially the same condition gets no extra time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re not the first person to say this but it makes no sense. Someone who’s dumb also takes longer to read. Should dumb people also get extra time because of their “disability?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but a “dumb” one probably won’t get the right answers, no matter how much time he or she has.</p>
<p>Yes, a student who has a low score due to a disability will probably see a score improvement. No, a student does not have to disclose that a test was taken with accommodations.</p>
<p>My son is dyslexic and took standardized tests with and without time and a half. I, too, wondered if it would make a difference. It did not make much difference at all. He would have needed much more than time and a half to get through all the questions in the reading comprehension sections. He always finished the math with time to spare, so time and a half was meaningless on the math and once again had little affect on the final scores.</p>
<p>This can work either way. If you don’t know the material, sitting there for more time will not help. If you do know the material, and your processing speeds are slow, more time can give you a chance to show what you know. </p>
<p>The test is not meant to be a race. The times that are set are supposed to give the typical test-taker a reasonable amount of time to show what they do or don’t know.</p>
<p>However, if you get extra time, you really do have to sit there until the time for each section is up, even if you finish a section before the time is up (such as a dyslexic who proceeds through the math problems at the normal pace) and that can be a very long time if you have extra time. Distractability is often part of learning disabilities, and the additional time in the seat can mean that they lose focus, and undermine performance for some LD kids.</p>
<p>A fairer proxy for the LD kid might be to take a 2/3 length test in the normal amount of time. That way, the LD kids would not be required to have greater mental stamina and endurance of focus, for the significantly longer period of time. But that’s not the way it works.</p>
<p>Inconsistency of performance is also a hallmark of many LDs. So there can be a higher degree of variability from day to day, which is essentially random, and shows in the test scores. I saw one kid with LDs take the full SAT with extra time in both spring of 10th and spring of 11th, and score much higher (like 30 percentile points?) on CR in 10th. His day-to-day performance in English, his composition skills, his vocabulary, etc. had all absolutely improved in that year. But it did not show on the test.</p>
<p>“The test is not meant to be a race. The times that are set are supposed to give the typical test-taker a reasonable amount of time to show what they do or don’t know.”</p>
<p>I wish that were true, but it isn’t. The typical test-taker either doesn’t finish or rushes to finish. The ACT in particular is set to be quite time pressured. Processing speed is part of what they’re measuring.</p>
<p>My daughter doesn’t have any issues, so didn’t get more time, but her PSAT went up a LOT between sophomore and junior year. She advanced one grade and is almost 2 years behind her classmates (a mistake, I believe) so I think it was just development as much as anything. Just thought I’d mention it.</p>
<p>Thanks, TranquilMind. I am hoping that my son’s PSAT score goes up this year (junior year). He has mild Asperger’s and is very erratic in his test taking. When he took the SSAT to get into private school, he got a near-perfect score, but when he took the PSAT last year, he barely cracked 200. And his scores on the state tests when he was in public school were all over the map. We’ve come to expect just about anything from him. I just hope that when it counts, he surprises us with one of his high scores!</p>
<p>If his scores tend to be erratic, consider having him take multiple tests. A lot of school superscore, and you have better odds that he’ll score well at least once. Unless, of course, the tests wig him out, then I would just prep, prep, prep.</p>
<p>Why would you seek such a diagnosis with with a 89 perecentile score. It feels like your gaming the system.</p>
<p>JRCLMom, you can’t superscore the PSAT, SATs yes. </p>
<p>Massmom, I don’t think I’d call “barely cracking a 200” erratic. That puts him in the top 3% of Sophomores nationally.</p>
<p>His higher scores doesn’t mean the system is broken. It means that he’s in the top 1% of test-takers nationwide but his learning disability was holding him back in the 11th percentile. It doesn’t matter whether or not he’s already done really well; the goal is for all students to be performing at their full potential, regardless of whether that’s bringing them from failing to passing or from the top 5% to the top 1%.</p>
<p>With that said, I have supervised students who have extra time on exams (not SAT or ACT - college exams) and it doesn’t always help them do better. As was already stated, they have to know the material. I think it helps students who really know the material but whose LD is holding them back because they read or process information more slowly.</p>
<p>Some students don’t need the extra time, but the point is not for them to use it all; it’s for them to have it in case they do need it. They can finish early if they want to; they can even finish within the regular time parameters if that’s helpful. At most schools if you are registered with The Office of Disability Services (ODS) you don’t have to take advantage of the extra time in every class on every test. But you may find it helpful to do so in English composition even if you don’t do so in calculus II (or vice versa), which is why it’s helpful for students with LDs to register with ODS. I always encourage my students to register with ODS if they have or suspect they might have an LD. There’s no shame in it. Even if they never use testing accommodations, ODS does other things besides arrange those.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Inherently a race then (though I don’t even believe it’s true that they’re enough time for an “average” test taker). If it was meant to not be a race, they would give enough time for 98% of test-takers to show what they know. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By “dumb” I might mean someone who can’t read fluently, not someone who can’t read at all. Why not allow unlimited time if the time doesn’t matter?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can you distinguish this from someone who is at the 89th percentile nationwide but being pushed into the 99th percentile due to his extra time? Explain it to me like I’m 5.</p>
<p>So where does one draw the line? Should a 95percentile get more time? What about a 98%? When should the line be drawn?</p>