<p>Fortunately, my son’s advanced math class profs all give take-home exams, so the question of extra time is a moot point. He can take as much time as he needs and look at all of his references and notes, also.</p>
<p>I think it’s ok too! I’m not saying we should keep LD students out of college. I’m asking why we are giving very skilled kids who have ADD or processing issues twice the time we give “normal” kids. Many of these LD kids at Ivy League schools were born into families of wealth who have two parents who are both not only smart but college educated. Meanwhile, so-called average kids who have one parent who didn’t go to college are taking the SAT in the allotted amount of time. Either we give everyone all the time they need, or we should tell the universities who is getting extra time. But keeping it a secret is unethical.</p>
<p>No one resents a child who has an actual disability getting the help he or she needs. We are talking about the most elite students in the country, capable of getting into Harvard or Princeton, who are getting extra time at school and on the SAT and ACT, while their also very bright classmates are not. Then, the schools do not even know that these straight A students got twice the time to take the SAT that the other guy got, because a lawsuit ended that practice as well in 2003.</p>
<p>Agreed. But why should the kid who can’t break 650 get less time than the kid who can get an 800? And why should my kid with a 700 get an extra hour while your kid doesn’t? We don’t level the playing field for the low IQ kids, so why the ADD or slow processing kids?</p>
<p>If extra time does not benefit normal students, then why not give everyone the extra time? We had some state exams where this was in fact done. Students could spend all day on what was written to be a 1 hour test if they so chose. This neatly sidestepped the issue of who gets extra time and how much. Everyone got as much time as they wanted. That is a level playing field. The current system of giving extra time for some students on time-pressured tests is not fair and is not a level playing field.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also, students who do not have a disability where extra time on the test would help may be annoyed if (for example) the SAT took all day instead of half a day. Getting proctors and facilities may also be more difficult if the test were an all day instead of half day test. I.e. extra time for everyone would not necessarily be desired.</p>
<p>Many of these tests are in part a test of the ability to read, process, calculate and/or write, not just accurately but quickly. Doing these things quickly is not necessarily the best measure of success or talent as the anecdotes indicate. But it is clearly part of the skill set being evaluated by these tests.</p>
<p>I’d be happy for the tests to be written differently, to be harder and less time pressured and be more about showing what you can do rather than how fast and accurately you can work. I haven’t heard of the LD community pushing for this kind of reform.</p>
<p>D has always done better in English than math. Whether or not there was an underlying LD is a moot point at this time. Her best scores on the SAT were 610 math, 720 verbal. We encouraged her to try the ACT. Her older sister got a 35 math ACT vs 650 SAT, so I was hoping younger D would have better results too (fewer “tricky” questions.)</p>
<p>No such luck! D scored a 24 which converts to an even lower score than the 610. However, when we rec’d a breakdown of her answers, it showed that she had a long string of correct answers and then a string of them that were wrong at the end. It clearly showed where D ran out of time and began bubbling randomly. Had she had extended time, I’m sure her score would have been substantially higher. </p>
<p>So I personally like the idea for an untimed test for all. </p>
<p>If you look on the test prep forums here, there are lots of kid saying they don’t feel they have enough time, or weren’t able to finish. I don’t see how anyone can pretend these tests are not time-pressured for most students.</p>
<p>The question seems to be is slower than average a disability? I can’t believe this is a real question.</p>
<p>Some people are more deep thought. My husband is one and I’m the opposite. I’m quick but not thinking through all angles while my husband is the kind that has much slower response but his answers show that he think things through. We both don’t have learning disabilities, well at least not known anyway. So if problems involved speed I’ll win. People like my husband wouldn’t do well on the SAT LD or not LD.</p>
<p>DS1 is one of those LD kids at an Ivy League school who is accommodated for his disabilities. For the record, my son disclosed on his college apps his disabilities, his accommodations AND the severe discrimination he faced at the hands of close-minded and/or ill-informed teachers throughout his public school career. He still gained admittance at several top schools.</p>
<p>I totally understand the frustration with students who shop around for a diagnosis allowing them extra time on tests. It’s particularly frustrating for students who actually have serious LDs and their parents, because it makes the uninformed majority suspect of all accommodated students. However, I find the idea that a processing disorder isn’t a legitimate disability bizarre and clearly formed in an information void.</p>
<p>Less than 1% of the population has an IQ above 135. Let’s just say that you have a student with an IQ (including even his lowest IQ components) that exceeds 135 by a respectable increase. When you speak with this student, it is immediately clear that his knowledge far exceeds that of most of his peers, and many more mature minds, as well. Let’s go out on a limb and say that this student isn’t just talented and knowledgeable in one subject area, but wins significant state and national awards in virtually every subject area. </p>
<p>But there’s one problem: This student has severe Dysgraphia and a Processing IQ around 80 (first diagnosed in second grade, and confirmed again with almost identical results of tests performed for 6 hours over two successive days–virtually every diagnostic test available performed by a leading neuropsych in both rounds of tests). Basically, this student is a font of knowledge. But, he can’t write by hand. There is a virtual disconnect between his brain and his hands. </p>
<p>Even filling in a bubble sheet is almost impossible, because his brain can’t work when his hands are trying to move. If he tries to write a math equation by hand, he reverses numbers and gets the wrong answer, but if he works the same equation in his head, he gets the correct answer. He can do multivariable calculus in his head, but he can’t write it out by hand. As another commenter said, this student can speak with extraordinary knowledge on virtually any subject presented to him, but he can’t write what he just told you by hand, and has a difficult time typing it on a computer.</p>
<p>Soooo, if you’re an Ivy League admissions committee (or any admissions committee, for that matter), do you look at this student’s extraordinary accomplishments and intellect and say, “Yeah, he’s a certified genius, he’s creative, he’s knowledgeable, he’s won a full page of national and international awards in myriad subject areas, and he’s artistically talented, too. But it might take him an extra 30 minutes to complete his mid-terms and finals, and he might not finish some of his handwritten assignments as quickly as his peers do (even though his verbal explanations would far exceed the quality of most of his peers’ work products), so…never mind”? Sadly, there are probably some admissions officers who feel the way that many commenters here feel. And, that’s their loss. Fortunately, each admissions cycle, admissions committees at virtually every top school look past student’s disabilities and critique them on the merit of their holistic applications.</p>
<p>To all of you who have taken this opportunity to try to explain the REAL stories of students with learning disabilities, many kudos to you. To those of you who are truly interested in understanding the challenges and discrimination these students face every day, kudos to you, too. Knowledge is a valuable commodity. And to those of you who still wonder why so many LD students choose not to disclose their disabilities in their college applications, you needn’t look any further than this very thread (where at least half of the posts attempt to discredit LD students) for the answer. ;)</p>
<p>I didn’t see a single post that “attempted to discredit LD students.”</p>
<p>Happykidsmom,
What is your argument against giving everyone the same amount of time as LD kids?</p>
<p>And, in order to address the OPs exact topic, for my sons (yes, both of my children were “blessed” with similar LDs–no prior history on either side of the family and both diagnosed in first and second grades after TEACHERS noticed clear discrepancies between knowledge they could verbalize and what they could write suggested testing), let me just say: extra time on standardized tests does not compensate for my sons’ disabilities. It makes it possible for them to TAKE the tests, but it does not make it possible for them to FINISH many of the tests–certainly not with the quality of work that they would be able to provide were they allowed to take the tests verbally and have their answers recorded (an accommodation that is not available). </p>
<p>When my sons take a standardized test, especially with a written component, it is a given that their work product will not be a clear reflection of their knowledge and communication skills. In my mind, that is quite unfair. Their accommodations should allow them to be critiqued verbally, thus saving them and their proctors the need for additional time. Unfortunately, that’s not available. Extra time is not a true accommodation for their disability, and it certainly doesn’t “level the playing field”, or allow them the ability to communicate to the best of their abilities, but it’s what they get. Yes, there are students who abuse the system. But there are many students who need the accommodations and were verified LD long before college admissions were on the radar. For those kids, extra time is not a “perk” and most certainly doesn’t give them an unfair advantage. They’re just happy to be able to stay in the game.</p>
<p>When my oldest applied to college, she was allowed extra time, and that was noted in her scores.
She also attended a school that had untuned tests in some classes, so I know those schools are out there.
I don’t know why the college board changed the extended time notification, but it was very, very difficult for her sister to get extended time, despite having several disabilities noted in her IEP.</p>
<p>I am a teacher and often give tests to students who need accommodations. It is true that many students who have time and a half or double time, often finish their tests in much less than the regular allotted time, since time itself really doesn’t address their disability. And in regular class rooms, I see children who are thoughtfully slogging through a test. Or re- checking answers but are unable to finish because of time constraints. </p>
<p>I have absolutely no issue giving all students extra time. Whether it’s due to a diagnosed disability or just differentiation among individuals that can be seen in the strengths and weaknesses of their learning style, many students will perform better without the pressure of time restraints. </p>
<p>D who got 24/ 610 in math has a 138 or so IQ. If she has some sort of LD, it seems to affect how quickly she can solve math problems. But she’s survived HS math, gotten accepted in her first choice school as an art major and plans on avoiding timed math scenarios in life as much as possible. Clearly others have issues that can’t be avoided and are due their accommodations. Luckily d’s college took a holistic approach, and her art portfolio was an important factor in her acceptance. But had she chosen another major, it really would have been unfortunate if she had not gotten into her school (NYU) that offers high academics that match her capabilities. </p>
<p>@Bay , I have absolutely NO problem with every student getting as much time as they need to finish the tests. Fine with me. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find enough proctors willing to devote 6+ hours to proctor an ACT test with even just 50% extra time. But, if all students are going to receive extra time, I think that the actual disabilities for truly disabled students should be addressed, as well. Currently, it takes almost an act of congress just to get extra time for a band-aid accommodation. I’m happy to give every student as much time as they wish to use if my students can take the tests verbally. THAT would be a level playing field 
</p>
<p>As to your suggestion that I was fabricating my assertion that some commenters were discrediting LD students, here are just a few comments I found in a very quick perusal of prior comments. If you don’t feel that these sorts of comments question the authenticity of the majority of learning disabilities, well, you’re entitled to your opinion. I’m also entitled to mine. Ah, the beauty of CC :</p>
<p>“The question seems to be is slower than average a disability? I can’t believe this is a real question.” </p>
<p>“Using some current LD testing criteria, every single student in a super smart class or a super slow class would get extra time, while all the so-called average kids just have to do what they can.” (I would love to know exactly which current testing criteria produces this sort of remarkable outcome. Please advise.)</p>
<p>“Once they get into Princeton, they have even sued to get extra time there as well. They then use their wonderful grades to apply to Harvard Law School. All with a learning disability that has afforded them a much easier testing track than the so-called normal children.” (For the record, my son applied to college with a 3.6 GPA, a weighted rank nowhere near the top 10%, and his educational experience and testing track were hellacious. Just sayin’).</p>
<p>“How can a psychologist spend time with a child and arbitrarily decide he needs twice the time as a supposedly normal child on tests when he is capable of scoring an almost perfect SAT score and the normal child is completely average?” (Arbitrarily? 12 hours of intense testing over two days with tests that have been scientifically proven to have a respectable level of accuracy over the course of several decades and millions of tests performed?)</p>
<p>Erasing duplicate post</p>
<p>Yeah, I hope that no one here doubts that there are kids who clearly need the extra time, and for whom a conventionally timed test would not be a fair reflection of their abilities or potential. My concern is that some parents are really savvy about getting diagnoses for their kids, and some aren’t, and there’s an obvious socioeconomic divide between these two groups. It also seems evident that when 30 % of the students in certain private schools are getting extra time, there is something wrong.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if giving everyone unlimited time would be a reasonable fix, though, and I’m not sure if there’s a better solution. Having some kids get an unmerited advantage (and probably not an overwhelming advantage, either) is better than holding kids with LDs to standards that don’t make sense for them. And while there are plenty of kids without an LD who might be slower than average workers, normal variation doesn’t warrant an accommodation. It warrants recognition that SAT scores aren’t the be all and end all, which colleges already recognize -as, indeed, they recognize that there are many reasons other than intelligence why kids from poorer backgrounds might have lower scores, and take that into account. </p>
<p>S was also dx with disorder of written expression in 2nd grade. We could see how smart he was - would pick up vocabulary at times that we didn’t know, could do complicated math in his head, but couldn’t write it down. We were confused by his significant difficulty learning to read and write and his middling school performance. Psychological testing with a psychologist at the children’s hospital showed that he was gifted, with particular talents in math. This was accompanied by a slow processing speed and certain memory issues in addition to the LD. We found out that all of the math placements had been made based on timed tests. He went from a middle grouping to an advanced grouping where he did very well with some supports. </p>
<p>While he had an IEP through middle school and received multiple supports, his skills had improved to the degree that this was no longer necessary in HS. One teacher commented that S was the most concise writer he had come across (because S definitely didn’t want to write more than necessary!). We also frequently got comments that his writing wasn’t as good as one would expect from his verbal responses. Whenever we explained S’s path and how far he’d come, teachers looked at his work in a different light.</p>
<p>We did not request any accommodations on the SAT, and he ended up a NMS, but if accommodations had still been needed, I would have had no problem requesting them. I think that people who have not had this experience do not realize how hard these kids have to work. I think that the most important take home message is that if your child’s academic issues don’t make sense to you and the teacher is unable to explain, psychological testing to rule out LD’s can be critical for a child to reach his full potential. I still remember my 2nd grader tearfully telling me that he was stupid, which we knew wasn’t remotely true.</p>