<p>My problem with this is the lack of transparency about the accommodations made. I don’t see why kids should be given extra time on a standardized test without it being disclosed the tests were taken under non-standard conditions. I’m all for making the accommodations but the implication of this article is that the explosion of these accommodations is a scam on the system. One has to wonder how many people demand accommodations that would instead forego them if the testers were noted to have a couple of extra hours on the exams.</p>
<p>^collegealum314,</p>
<p>I am not an expert, but I don’t think so. </p>
<p>Also as thumer1 said, not everyone with ADHD requires extra time anyway. Even with all his looking in window and being easily distracted handicap, my son figured out how to take tests in a time given to students without disabilities and get scores indicative of his academic abilities. That is not to say, that other kids with ADHD not taking medication do not require extra time. But, with taking medication and responding well to it, these children should not be requiring extra time. One thing to note though is that timing of medication is important. Like if you have test in the evening (like my son has when he takes his calculus test at local flagship), then taking medication early morning does not do you any good. However, taking medication in the evening is not good either, because then the child has difficulty falling asleep.</p>
<p>Applicants do not get accomodations just because they have a diagnosis. They have to demonstrate that they have a diagnosis, have qualified for accomodations in their school and have used the accomodations for at least 4 mos (last I checked that was the #) before their application, which includes a complete evaluation and documentation of their disability, will even be considered. One has to provide objective data demonstrating that the disability causes a major impairment or functional limitation due to the documented disability. Applications for accomodated testing (which can include for example, a quiet room, extended time, larger scantron answer sheet, use of a computer, etc etc) are reviewed by professionals and must meet criteria for the type of disability (eg, LD, ADHD, medical, psychiatric, etc). This is not easy and not guaranteed. It is not as easy to get accomodations as is implied in the article.</p>
<p>To answer someone’s question, if a person’s attentional problems are adequately managed with medication, they very likely will not qualify for accomodations. We must document in our reports if the candidate was on their medication at the time of testing, with the expectation that they will be taking all medicines as prescribed on the day of testing for accomodations. It has even been suggested by some companies (MCAT or LSAC, I can’t recall) that the person be drug screened on the testing day to confirm that they are on their medications!</p>
<p>The stigma of standardized tests being flagged as “non standard administration” was removed in the advent of the ADA guidelines, to minimize the risk or discrimination and to have each individual compared to the “average person”, the idea being that if a disabled person was adequately accomodated, they would be on a level playing field with the “average person”. While the removal of the non-standardized flag did lead to a rise in applications for accomodations, so too have the requirements to document evidence of the disability.</p>
<p>I’m with YaleGrad and support the flagging of extra-time tests. I had a friend with extra time…that absolutely didn’t need it. He was able to scam the system because his teacher father set him up for it (and doted upon him as his math teacher for two years of high school).</p>
<p>Well, if you want to have accomodated testing flagged, you’ll have to take that up with the federal government. Ain’t gonna happen. It went out with the implementation of ADA guidelines.</p>
<p>Alright. Let’s repeal the ADA.
Does the ADA prohibit colleges from asking applicants whether they received extra time? That seems like a way to do it.</p>
<p>
Good luck with that. There are many things that cannot be asked on applications for school, jobs, etc. A student is not required to disclose if they took the tests under accomodated conditions.</p>
<p>The wrong solutions were applied to a real problem. </p>
<p>Students who have learning disabilities (forgive the incorrect term if offensive to some) should receive accomodations. The removal of the flags might have brought a level of protection to the students, but it also revived an entire cottage industry that lives from exploiting and abusing loopholes. </p>
<p>The correct answer is not to offer extra time on the SAME tests, but to create and administer a test that is different but result in the same difficulty. </p>
<p>Fwiw, some administrations of extra-time tests have been highly questionable. A prolific student on CC who exhibited the greatest difficulties in preparing for the SAT was not only given the test with extra time but was given the same test that had been offered four days earlier. The student could not believe his luck as every question had been discussed and debated ad nauseam for 3 days. </p>
<p>Just as the recycling of tests abroad is favoring the internationals, the College Board seems to be oblivious to the level of abuse and cheating its poor policing has created in circles that have the means and motivation as well as a different take on integrity,</p>
<p>Sounds like political correctness run amuck. I go to the DMV as blind as a bat wearing contacts to give me 20:20 correction and they ask me if I wear corrective lenses and post that on my driver’s license. Now I feel like I have been offended because of my disability.</p>
<p><quote> My problem with this is the lack of transparency about the accommodations made. I don’t see why kids should be given extra time on a standardized test without it being disclosed the tests were taken under non-standard conditions. I’m all for making the accommodations but the implication of this article is that the explosion of these accommodations is a scam on the system. One has to wonder how many people demand accommodations that would instead forego them if the testers were noted to have a couple of extra hours on the exams. </quote></p>
<p>My health is my business, and mine alone. I got extra time on the SAT due to a terminal illness that’s now starting to affect my brain, slowing my thinking down just a hair. And you know what? I don’t want the admissions officers to know that. They know about the physical stuff, but it is my choice to keep the mental stuff private, because mental things are seen in a very different light by admissions officers-- the phrase “brainwave slowing due to progressive encephalopathy” really doesn’t make me seem fit to attend college, no matter that I got a 2340. </p>
<p>These laws are for a reason, to protect against bias. You can say that the admissions officers wouldn’t be biased against me for it, but isn’t the point of telling them so that they would be? Accommodations even the playing field, I don’t deserve to be penalized for them, or even just have a slight risk of getting a bad admissions officer and then get penalized for them.</p>
<p>Beautiful example, partyhat, and so sorry for your illness.</p>
<p>Yalegradanddad- You must be able to prove you can see adequately (I forget what acuity is necessary) to qualify for a drivers license, just as you must prove to the collegeboard that you have a documented disability to qualify for accomodations. You are accomodating your visual impairment with glasses or contacts to allow you to “focus” just as a person with ADHD may be taking medications to help them to focus, and if they do so successfully, will not need, nor should they get, extended time.</p>
<p>You dont want to tell them that you wear contacts? If your records show you wear corrective lenses you’ll have to either show the glasses or say you wear contacts, and pass the vision test. Otherwise lucky you gets a State ID only, and no drivers license. The responsibility there is to the safety of the public. If you are not able to see well enough to be considered safe to drive, you probably wont get that priviledge.</p>
<p>^^ People are entitled to divergent opinions.</p>
<p>Schools should base their decisions on full and complete files, and demonstrate that they do not engage in discrimination. Having to make decisions on filtered and incomplete applications is a proposal that fails many. </p>
<p>The process of seeking, obtaining, and non-reporting special accommodations is highly discriminatory in itself, as it requires a level of parental guidance and resources not available universally.</p>
<p>Fwiw, perhaps we should ask the true experts in this field to offer a guesstimate of the level of gamesmanship and cheating that has resulted from the removal of the flagging. No precise data is needed, just an idea of how explosive the growth has been in outfits that specializes in playing the game. </p>
<p>Actually, I am not sure I want to know!</p>
<p>While technically one could probably ask for accomodations by an employer for something like ADD, I would imagine that with our extremely high unemployment rates right now, a lot of people might think twice about doing so. In many workplaces now, one individual is being asked to do the work of the two or three people who were already laid off. I would imagine that convincing your employer that you should only do the work of .75 people or that you should be allowed to work at a slower pace would be a tough sell and would undoubtedly create high levels of resentment and anger from your colleagues. Now of course, someone will chime with an example of one particularly brilliant individual who should have all sorts of accomodations made due to their extreme brilliance – but I’m saying that if there are two equally competent individuals and one does the work of three people and the other needs to be allowed to work at a slower pace than the average individual, in the current economic climate, that sounds like a luxury that many businesses simply can’t afford.</p>
<p>I’m saying that if there are two equally competent individuals and one does the work of three people and the other needs to be allowed to work at a slower pace than the average individual, in the current economic climate, that sounds like a luxury that many businesses simply can’t afford.</p>
<p>But like with college admissions , you don’t have to disclose that you have a disability in the job search process & employers can’t ask about it.</p>
<p>If 2 people are equally qualified and are able to perform the “essential functions of the job” (ADA verbiage) the employer CANNOT discriminate based on one person’s disability. If they do, they could be facing a very large lawsuit.</p>
<p>** note-- this applies to companies employing over 50 people. Smaller companies get a bit of a break if the accomodations would cause undue hardship.</p>
<p>I remember reading about a psychologist who used to fly from city to city doing very expensive private evaluations of students, in hotels near the airport, to help them apply for SAT accomodations. How he got around the licensing law in these states is beyond me, unless he limited himself to going to states that allow unlicenced practice if there under 30 days. Really sleazy. Hope he is no lpnger permitted to do this.</p>
<p>My 16-year-old has been diagnosed with a severe mental illness. He’s in honors classes because he’s bright, but he struggles on tests. He is being given “504 accommodations” such as longer exam times. Multiple choice exams are particularly hard for him, so his teachers are going to give him open-ended questions instead. The school is going to petition for him to have longer on the SAT.</p>
<p>
Because unfortunately, whether on purpose or subconsciously, adcoms do discriminate based on LDs and other disabilities. They may say they are holistic and fair, but when they see a kid has a disability, they subconsciously (or outright) wonder if it will affect them in college. As someone with some LDs and other issues that give me extended time, my mother and I spoke extensively with several adcoms we know at selective schools before I began the application process. We asked if we should disclose the issues. They all said it shouldn’t matter and affect anything, but unfortunately, it does. Adcoms are only human, so it is wholly understandable if they, without realizing it, reject a kid because they are wary of disabilities. For instance, many people would call themselves very tolerant, but when faced with a disfigured person or someone with obvious physical handicaps, without realizing it they are likely judging them and developing potentially untrue preconceived notions about the person’s abilities or lack thereof.</p>
<p>
The metaphor I always use is as follows: If a runner is very talented and fast, but has a broken leg, would you still force him to compete with able-bodied runners? Even if he can outrun them still, would you consider it entirely fair? Who cares if, when the playing field is finally leveled, someone continues to excel at what they do. Does that mean they shouldn’t have a level playing field just because someone is very intelligent? Do you think it’s impossible for a LD or otherwise disabled student to be smart? Because if you look at some of the greats in history, you’ll find yourself gravely mistaken. Many brilliant people have had issues. Having LDs or other disabilities doesn’t make you stupid, just like being smart doesn’t mean you have no LDs or other disabilities.</p>
<p>I think the term for kids who are exceptional in on area but have some type of learning difference are called twice gifted. Many schools do not know what to do with a kid who spis really good in one area but struggles in others. I see it right here in my little neighborhood.</p>
<p>Don’t flame me for this, but my daughter used to ask if those with test anxiety get extra time for tests, shouldn’t she with social anxiety get extra time with lunch?</p>
<p>^ That’s pretty good!</p>