<p>WedgeDawg, honestly, if I were an admissions officer and I saw a kid with a 1700 who wrote about overcoming his disabilities in his essays, I would wonder why he didn’t use extra time. It would not impress me at all that he did not use what resources he had available to him. Unless he specifically wrote about why he did not use these resources in his essay, I would assume that the kid was lazy, uninformed, or irresponsible. Granted, I don’t know how the minds of admissions officers work, but that would be my thought.</p>
<p>“Rainbow sprinkles, I feel like you’re treading in dangerous water here. Why does someone with a physical disability deserve extra time where someone with a mental disability does not? Is it because mental disabilities are not as “real” as physical disabilities? That notion is ridiculous. Mental disabilities, from ADD to anxiety to depression to dyslexia are actually often caused in the same ways that physical disabilities are. All four of the things I mentioned are caused caused by heredity, genetic mutation, or outside factors, just like physical disabilities. The only difference between physical and mental disabilities is that you can see the physical. So why are people with physical disabilities so much more deserving of extra time?”</p>
<p>This. A thousand times this. </p>
<p>In fact, I agree with pretty much all of what aleader said. I think a lot of you are missing the point while you kvetch about “but now it’s not EQUAL!” In this situation, extra time IS the equalizer, and it’s ridiculously unfair to hold a disabled kid to the same standard as an able-bodied one. They are not gaining any secret advantages. They’re merely being lifted to a comparable level, and since you are the privileged ones in the situation, it’s beyond me what YOU have to complain about. </p>
<p>“The most important question for a counselor regarding test administration to a student with a disability is whether the student can be appropriately and meaningfully assessed using the conditions under which the instrument was standardized.” ( [Testing</a> Students with Disabilities. ERIC Digest.](<a href=“http://www.ericdigests.org/1996-4/testing.htm]Testing”>http://www.ericdigests.org/1996-4/testing.htm) ) </p>
<p>In this case, it’s quite obvious that these tests were STANDARDIZED with different conditions. The time limits were chosen because of certain abilities expected of certain students–disabled students not included. </p>
<p>Anyway, the point is moot because it’s all about the ADA. Things ARE fair right now, and even if CB had any thoughts about disallowing extra time, they’d never follow through for fear of being slapped with a lawsuit. Seriously. The CB is not just making this stuff up because they fancy it–</p>
<p>“Time limits can be enforced, extended, or waived altogether. Test takers may be given extra rest pauses, a reader, an amanuensis (a recorder), a sign language interpreter, a tape recorder to register answers, convenient test taking locations and assessment times, and other accommodations as needed to meet their particular requirements” (Geisinger, 1994, p. 124).</p>
<p>Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Psychometric issues in testing students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 121-140.</p>
<p>aleader, are you kidding with this statement: “Colleges don’t care about people who test well”? Do you honestly think that admission officers completely disregard an applicant with a high test score? The whole point of a standardized test is to have everyone on an equal playing field.</p>
<p>Also, I NEVER said that “mental disabilities are not as REAL as physical disabilities”. In my opinion, a person who has physical disabilities is more deserving of receiving extra time because they physically cannot or has troubles filling in the bubble sheet, flipping paper, etc. Someone who has ADD, on the other hand, should not receive extra time simply because they have troubles concentrating. It’s a game of the mind and they should try to overcome the boundaries.</p>
<p>Another reason why I don’t support CB giving extra time to people with mental disabilities is that many people who don’t have them abuse this rule.</p>
<p>To your second post: WHY would it NOT impress you that the applicant who has a mental disability TRIED to do the test WITHOUT EXTRA TIME? Why? That to me seems completely RIDICULOUS. An admissions officer would likely COMMEND the guy/girl for trying to push his/her boundaries, to STEP OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONE AND <em>TAKE A RISK</em>.</p>
<p>Why in the world would you “assume that the kid was lazy, uninformed, or irresponsible”???</p>
<p>There is no logic to your argument (if you could even call it that).</p>
<p>I think if they get extra time the colleges should find out, so after the number there should be a R or LD, so they know if you got the learning disabled version. And everyone has a disability of one kind or another. I cant read fast, so if i was allowed to take as much time as i wanted then i would get a better score. Maybe everyone should be allowed to take as much time as they want. Everyone wants to be treated equally but then get special treatment for whatever reason. Mainly cause its not fair. I bet the problem is from lawyers.</p>
<p>aarelle, in YOUR opinion the present situation is fair, but I cannot agree with you.</p>
<p>What they get is irrelevant to me. It doesn’t even affect me. I am not arguing my point of view because I feel threatened or anything like that. I am voicing my opinion because I feel that it is only fair and just.</p>
<p>Also, why is everyone assuming that all students with mental disabilities will perform poorly on standardized tests? And why does everyone think that if a kid with a mental disability performs poorly, that they are secret geniuses?</p>
<p>And as someone else said on this post, kids with mental disabilities should not get extra time because this is an artificial boost. They won’t get extra time in real life. It’s a harsh reality, but nevertheless, a reality.</p>
<p>"And as someone else said on this post, kids with mental disabilities should not get extra time because this is an artificial boost. They won’t get extra time in real life. It’s a harsh reality, but nevertheless, a reality. "</p>
<p>But this logic is flawed, because what is a prosthetic leg but an artificial boost in walking speed/ability? What are glasses but an artificial boost in one’s ability to see? (Without this ~advantage, I can pretty much guarantee that I’d bomb every test in existence, as my left eye’s about 20/2000 and my right not much better.) What about wheelchairs? Crutches? Ramps? </p>
<p>Let’s say Student A is 20/20. If we’re giving him an eye test, he’ll just look at the chart, read it off, and be done. My optometrist always has me keep my glasses on for that preliminary test because I simply cannot see otherwise. Was I given an artificial boost in eyesight? Yes. Was it something I needed to complete the test to my full ability? Yes. Did Student A need glasses to perform his best on the test? No. Is it unfair that I wore them and he didn’t? No, because it put us on a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. You can’t call the SAT an equalizer if you have kids entering into it with INSURMOUNTABLE (no, not all mental disabilities can be ~overcome with hard work and concentration!) handicaps. If I squint, I can’t magically turn blurs into letters. </p>
<p>“Also, why is everyone assuming that all students with mental disabilities will perform poorly on standardized tests?” </p>
<p>Hmm. What a tough question. With a word like “disabilities,” you’d think the kids would <em>all</em> have preternatural testing abilities! By definition, the person has a sort of physical or mental impairment.</p>
<p>“And why does everyone think that if a kid with a mental disability performs poorly, that they are secret geniuses?”</p>
<p>No one said this, merely that without a time standardized to their physical/physiological limitations, they won’t be able to perform to to their full potential.</p>
<p>There are ZERO parallels between having glasses to see well and a kid with a mental disability getting extra time on a standardized test.</p>
<p>One is physical and one is mental. You can’t begin to compare the two things.</p>
<p>Just because someone has a mental disability does NOT mean that they will perform worse than kids without them 100% of the time on a standardized test. A lot of kids with no disabilities whatsoever at my high school don’t care about their grades and they skip classes everyday. Tell me, are these kids who have no disabilities (physical or mental) more likely to get a higher score than kids with mental disabilities who try hard in school? NO. </p>
<p>Also, there is no need for your sarcastic tone.</p>
<p>Another note: “without a time standardized to their physical/physiological limitations, they won’t be able to perform to to their full potential.” The “time standardized to their limitations” is WAY TOO SUBJECTIVE. Where do you draw the line? How do you know that X amount of time is EXACTLY what a kid with a mental disability will need in order to be brought up to JUST the RIGHT LEVEL, on par with the kids who don’t have learning disabilities? Who is to judge? What is the right amount of time for each person? Is there EVEN a PERFECT amount of extra time that should be given? How should each individual’s case be examined? Who gets to determine the time? What if the individual doesn’t even WANT extra time? What if the individual wants MORE time than the really need? </p>
<p>The matter isn’t black and white, you know.</p>
<p>
This isn’t necessarily true. First, most colleges have an Office of Disability Services where students with diagnosed disabilities can arrange for their instructors to give them more time, or a special reader, etc. for their classes and exams. Probably the people with time-requiring disabilities are not working at jobs where they have constant time constrained deadlines. Even if they do get up against a deadline, they may decide to work through lunch or stay late to work on a project, so they do “get extra time”. </p>
<p>I once worked with a dyslexic engineer. I don’t know if she had extra time on her SAT or her college classes, but she did fine at her job.</p>
<p>My son is diabetic - he does get special consideration but not extra time. He needs to test his blood levels and is not allowed to do so during the regularly administered test. So, he takes the exact same test in a separate room where he is free to test his blood and eat/drink if he needs to. No extra time! So he is actually at a disadvantage as it takes approximately 40 seconds to test his blood and he likely will do this twice during the exam…OMG, he is losing a whole minute and 20 seconds. </p>
<p>Seriously, his accommodation is for the benefit of the other test takers in the room. He may make noise while testing his blood so must be removed from the general population so he dosesn’t disturb other test takers. I am fine with this, but I wouldn’t say diabetes is giving him an unfair advantage.</p>
<p>“aleader, are you kidding with this statement: “Colleges don’t care about people who test well”? Do you honestly think that admission officers completely disregard an applicant with a high test score? The whole point of a standardized test is to have everyone on an equal playing field.”</p>
<p>Nope, in context the statement makes perfect sense. They don’t care about good test scores. They care about people who will succeed in college. Often , the test score is an indicator of this. That is why, yes, a lot of 2400 applicants are admitted. However, many top tier schools regularly turn away applicants with 2400s in favor of kids with 2200s simply because through other parts of the application, the 2200 kid has proved that he is more likely to be successful and happy at the school then the 2400 kid. </p>
<p>“Also, I NEVER said that “mental disabilities are not as REAL as physical disabilities”. In my opinion, a person who has physical disabilities is more deserving of receiving extra time because they physically cannot or has troubles filling in the bubble sheet, flipping paper, etc. Someone who has ADD, on the other hand, should not receive extra time simply because they have troubles concentrating. It’s a game of the mind and they should try to overcome the boundaries.”</p>
<p>Well maybe you should tell the person with the physical disabilities that they should try to overcome the boundaries and bubble and turn pages a little bit better. I mean, really, that would be silly. ADD is just as difficult for a mind to overcome as paralysis is for the body to overcome. </p>
<p>“To your second post: WHY would it NOT impress you that the applicant who has a mental disability TRIED to do the test WITHOUT EXTRA TIME? Why? That to me seems completely RIDICULOUS. An admissions officer would likely COMMEND the guy/girl for trying to push his/her boundaries, to STEP OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONE AND <em>TAKE A RISK</em>.”</p>
<p>-shrug- If he had an opportunity and resources at his disposal, I would definitely wonder about that. If he wanted to take a step out of his comfort zone and try without extended time, that’s fine. But, if he doesn’t also take advantage of extended time in another sitting, then his 1700 won’t be as impressive to me as someone who got a 2100 with extended time. That’s just how it is. If he had some sort of moral qualm with using extended time and explained that somewhere in the application, I would definitely take that into consideration, as I stated before. If he just presented the score and said, “I have dyslexia,” with no further explanation of his choice not to use extended time, I would, personally, accept the 2100 extended time applicant (assuming the application is based only on scores) much more readily. A failure to use resources with no valid explanation just doesn’t impress me.</p>
<p>“Well maybe you should tell the person with the physical disabilities that they should try to overcome the boundaries and bubble and turn pages a little bit better. I mean, really, that would be silly. ADD is just as difficult for a mind to overcome as paralysis is for the body to overcome.”</p>
<p>I think I’ll just copy and paste this if there are any more “get over it” replies. Just because a disability isn’t visible doesn’t mean that a disabled person can overcome it if they just <em>try</em> hard enough.</p>
<p>RainbowSprinkles, I hate to say it, but I think you’re being a bit ableist. Aleader’s done a pretty good job of explaining that mental disabilities are rooted in the physical, but perhaps seeing some more research would help make that clearer.</p>
<p>“Researchers believe that a large majority of ADHD cases arise from a combination of various genes, many of which affect dopamine transporters. Candidate genes include α2A adrenergic receptor, dopamine transporter, dopamine receptors D2/D3,[45] dopamine beta-hydroxylase monoamine oxidase A, catecholamine-methyl transferase, serotonin transporter promoter (SLC6A4), 5HT2A receptor, 5HT1B receptor,[46] the 10-repeat allele of the DAT1 gene,[47] the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 gene,[47] and the dopamine beta hydroxylase gene (DBH TaqI).[48]”</p>
<p>If that’s not something physical, I don’t know what the heck is. </p>
<p>I do understand some of what you’re saying. There IS a lot of grey area, but I feel like you’re plan of attack is to shove everything into the same box and pretend it’s all one color. There’s still some human error in the current system, but a two-color system gives the majority of test takers what they need/deserve, or at least a better approximation of it.</p>
<p>@aleader, what you were saying before was that colleges don’t give a ___ about high scores AT ALL. This is definitely not true, as high test scores often correlate with ability to succeed at school. </p>
<p>However, of COURSE 2400s are sometimes turned away, because nothing can guarantee admissions to selective schools. Of COURSE the 2200 might make it in because first of all, a 2200 is NOT bad and second of all, they may prove that they’re morel likely to do well than a person who has 2400 through their essays and such. I don’t disagree with this part, so I don’t know what you’re trying to argue here.</p>
<p>"ADD is just as difficult for a mind to overcome as paralysis is for the body to overcome. " Do you know this for a fact? Is this true for all people with ADD? You must understand that physical paralysis is usually permanent and therefore, is IMPOSSIBLE to be cured. ADD, on the other hand, can sometimes be cured with the help of psychologists, therapists, etc.</p>
<p>“A failure to use resources with no valid explanation just doesn’t impress me.” It doesn’t impress me, either, but if an applicant with a learning disability decided to push their limits and tried to get a high test score without having extra time and they EXPLAIN this in their essays, then why would you EVER think lowly of them? Why wouldn’t you admit someone who steps out of their comfort zone and CHALLENGES themselves voluntarily? These are the qualities of a truly hard-working student who wants to succeed. Also, if the student did not use extra time and they chose not to write about this as their essay because they felt that they had MORE IMPORTANT things they wanted to say, then you shouldn’t judge them. It is UNFAIR to ASSUME that they just didn’t use their resources because they didn’t feel like it.</p>
<p>@aarelle, you can say what you want, that physical PROBLEMS are the foundations of mental DISABILITIES, but the difference is that these aren’t PHYSICAL DISABILITIES. Maybe you should look up the definition of a physical disability before commenting further.</p>
<p>It’s great that you found the quote from some source of information and plastered it here for everyone to see. Yay-now you know what the causes of ADHD are. Good job!</p>
<p>I am NOT trying to “shove everything into the same box and pretend it’s all one color”. It’s not. LIFE’s not that SIMPLE. I am just voicing my own opinion on the matter being discussed here.</p>
<p>added note to aleader:</p>
<p>"Another note: “without a time standardized to their physical/physiological limitations, they won’t be able to perform to to their full potential.” The “time standardized to their limitations” is WAY TOO SUBJECTIVE. Where do you draw the line? How do you know that X amount of time is EXACTLY what a kid with a mental disability will need in order to be brought up to JUST the RIGHT LEVEL, on par with the kids who don’t have learning disabilities? Who is to judge? What is the right amount of time for each person? Is there EVEN a PERFECT amount of extra time that should be given? How should each individual’s case be examined? Who gets to determine the time? What if the individual doesn’t even WANT extra time? What if the individual wants MORE time than they really need? "</p>
<p>Please address what I had wrote before (the above), since you failed to do this in your last post.</p>
<p>Enlighten me, please. I am dying to know.</p>
<p>“I am NOT trying to “shove everything into the same box and pretend it’s all one color”. It’s not. LIFE’s not that SIMPLE.”</p>
<p>Then, pray tell, why are you arguing that we should get rid of extra time for mentally disabled students? Because the paragraph that you just reposted absolutely contradicts that. It’s subjective! It’s hard to draw the line! So let’s just forget about making distinctions and make time the ~same for everybody!~ Sure, judging the gradient of student abilities can be challenging/subjective, but by getting rid of extra time, you are essentially PRETENDING THAT IT DOESN’T EXIST. </p>
<p>“Where do you draw the line?” </p>
<p>Hmm, I think the QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS of the College Board have already figured that one out. They’ve devoted a lot more time/research to the matter than you, too. Stands to reason–they have to pay special attention to accomdations for fear of lawsuits. These concepts aren’t just pulled out of someone’s butt.</p>
<p>“How do you know that X amount of time is EXACTLY what a kid with a mental disability will need in order to be brought up to JUST the RIGHT LEVEL, on par with the kids who don’t have learning disabilities?” </p>
<p>OHH! This is tricky to figure out!! I vote that we just GIVE UP and make it the same for anybody, and force disabled kids to be held to the SAME EXACT STANDARDS as kids who have known able privilege all their lives and are on the fast track to Ivies!</p>
<p>“Who is to judge?” </p>
<p>Obviously you.</p>
<p>“What is the right amount of time for each person? Is there EVEN a PERFECT amount of extra time that should be given?”</p>
<p>See above. </p>
<p>“How should each individual’s case be examined?” </p>
<p>If one’s disability is professionally documented/diagnosed, one SUBMITS THAT DOCUMENTATION to the College Board. Then one can request accomodations/extra time/special provisions. </p>
<p>“Who gets to determine the time?” </p>
<p>The College Board. Seems obvious enough.</p>
<p>“What if the individual doesn’t even WANT extra time?”</p>
<p>Then they don’t APPLY FOR IT. Geez, did you think that the CB was forcing kids at knifepoint to choose extended time? </p>
<p>“What if the individual wants MORE time than they really need?”</p>
<p>This is a ridiculous question, quite frankly. Do you have some sort of ESP that tells you how much time a person ~ACTUALLY NEEDS~ for a test? I for one am fine with whatever the College Board decides is appropriate. Again, they CAREFULLY THINK THESE THINGS THROUGH. </p>
<p>This question also sounds like a thinly veiled “THE DISABLED KIDS ARE CHEATING THE SYSTEM! NO FAIR! I’M THREATENED!” </p>
<p>I suspect you’ll find a lot of answers to your questions here: [SAT</a> Testing - SSD - SAT With Testing Accomodations](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/testing/ssd/guidelines/sat]SAT”>Administering the SAT Weekend with Accommodations – Accommodations | College Board)</p>
<p>The matter IS subjective and it IS hard to draw the line, but this isn’t the reason why I think extra time shouldn’t be given to students with learning disabilities. I stand by my opinion because giving extra time is simply NOT FAIR and DEFEATS the purpose of STANDARDIZED testing. Also, I’m NOT pretending that extra time “doesn’t exist”-of COURSE it exists. It’s in practice today by College Board.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that I am 1) more experienced, 2) smarter, 3) more knowledgeable, etc. than professionals at CB. This is just my PERSONAL OPINION, and I don’t know every person working at CB, so I cannot comment on how “qualified” they are (but DO NOT assume, as I know that you will try to rip on me for this, that I think they are unprofessional). People at CB don’t personally know all the students with disabilities applying for extra time. Also, there is no need to be crude. It’s already quite clear that you lack refinement.</p>
<p>Well, I’d like to know: WHAT DO <em>YOU</em> PROPOSE we should do, and HOW can you ASSUME out of pure ignorance that “kids who have known able privilege all their lives are on the fast track to Ivies” (by the way, this phrase is grammatically incorrect. Kids don’t KNOW “able privilege”-that makes no sense whatsoever). I don’t have any mental or physical disabilities, but I don’t know if my application will impress admission officers.</p>
<p>NOBODY IS ON THE “FAST TRACK TO IVIES”.</p>
<p>I am NOT judging ANYONE. I am ONLY stating my PERSONAL OPINION-is this a crime? Here is silly little me, thinking that everybody still had FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT.</p>
<p>You haven’t adequately addressed my question of what is the perfect amount of time that should be given to each person. “See above” in your case leads to no concrete argument.</p>
<p>By “How should each individual’s case be examined?”, I DO NOT mean how it is CURRENTLY examined. It is extremely obvious that CB handles and assesses this type of information. I mean how “SHOULD” each individual’s case be examined. Please read carefully before making a comment.</p>
<p>I don’t believe I’ve EVER said that I had “some sort of ESP that tells [me] how much time a person actually needs for a test”. Who am I to judge how much time they need? I don’t know these people, so I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME THEY NEED, EXACTLY. I don’t think ANYONE REALLY DOES! This is why this topic is so controversial-at least for me. </p>
<p>You are right about the part that I feel it is UNFAIR, but you are 100% WRONG about the part that I “feel threatened”. I am very happy with my SAT score and what other people get have nothing to do with me, BUT WAIT, you’re probably going to want to rip on this, too, so let me clarify: I don’t care what other people have. It has nothing to do with me. The reason why I feel so strongly about the issue and the reason why I think it’s unfair for kids with learning disabilities to get extra time is because it defeats the whole purpose of a standardized test. If you are giving extra time to certain groups of kids, what comes next? The SAT is meant to test a student NOT ONLY on their knowledge (e.g. vocabulary in critical reading/writing sections), but ALSO on their ABILITY TO TAKE STANDARDIZED TESTS UNDER NORMAL, TIMED CONDITIONS.</p>
<p>One problem I do have with the whole “learning disability” concept is that I think too many things and too many kids are “diagnosed” with some “disability” or other. Little Johnny would rather watch TV or play computer games than sit for hours adding fractions. Adding fractions is not fun for little Johnny. In fact he finds it excruciatingly boring. So Johnny is doing poorly in math class. </p>
<p>Johnny’s mom is not happy, because this doesn’t look good down at the tennis club. She takes him to the nearest “expert” and gets a diagnosis of “mathlyxia” or whatever the latest craze is. Now Little Johnny has an excuse - he has a disability - and Mom can excuse poor Johnny, who is “disabled” after all. Both Mom and child can play the victim, and Johnny never has to trouble himself with boring old math again. Who can criticize a disabled child?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, US scores in math continue to fall against those of other countries and we wonder why.</p>
<p>ADD people should just focus better.
And depressed people should just cheer up.</p>
<p>Wow, a lot of ableist and privileged crap here.</p>
<p>One thing that seemed to not get enough thought on is the idea that the standardized test should be the objective test while the colleges should be the subjective readers of how the kids preformed based on their situation. I think both sides agree that it is really hard to determine the time certain disabilities should receive so it makes sense to set 1 time limit for everyone, and then have colleges decide the extent of the disabilities effect on the test. Colleges go through so much information, adding on this additional consideration does not seem like some ridiculous request, after all, colleges are looking at the disability for other purposes as well. Also keep in mind that kids will be affected by additional time in different ways. While some kid A with dyslexia might have the same level of preparedness for college as another kid B with the same condition that kid A has, Kid A might not need the extra time because he prepared and tried his hardest to overcome his disability while Kid B catches up to Kid A by getting the extra time. Im not saying the issues disappear with an absolute time limit but I think the issues remain even if CB attempts to “equalize” the playing field. Since the issues remain, it makes sense to make the test completely objective, and have colleges decide the impact of the disability and how that fits in with their own school.</p>
<p>
I don’t agree with this. Some people could get all day and not really do much better than they do in 3 hours. Others are going to get better scores because of the extended time. So if someone has a score of, say 1800, how would the college know if their disability prevented them from getting a better score or if that was just the best they could do regardless? Most students do not have time to finish all the questions as it is.</p>
<p>RainbowSprinkles, read the sentence again and I’m sure you’ll realize that “it” refers to “the gradient of student abilities,” not “extra time.”</p>
<p>One can know privilege just as one can know comfort or luxury. I’d really advise you to read up on privilege before this goes any further, because you don’t seem to grasp its implications. Kyriarchy is bad, no matter how you slice it.</p>
<p>In case you didn’t read this one, here’s the link again: [Unpacking</a> the knapsack of able privilege](<a href=“http://www.fsatoronto.com/programs/options/knapsack.html]Unpacking”>http://www.fsatoronto.com/programs/options/knapsack.html)</p>
<p>Another:</p>
<p>[brown_betty:</a> IBARW: A primer on privilege: what it is and what it isn’t.](<a href=“http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html]brown_betty:”>IBARW: A primer on privilege: what it is and what it isn't. - Sturdy and Serviceable — LiveJournal)</p>
<p>This is good, too:</p>
<p>[FACES</a> OF FIBRO: Disability 101: Able-Bodied Privilege](<a href=“http://facesoffibro.blogspot.com/2009/05/disability-101-able-bodied-privilege.html]FACES”>FACES OF FIBRO: Disability 101: Able-Bodied Privilege)</p>
<p>“Here is silly little me, thinking that everybody still had FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT.”</p>
<p>The only problem is that we can’t use our rights of freedom and speech to get in the way of others’ rights. Much like you can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded movie theater, you don’t have the right to spew ableist crap. You are privileged. I am privileged. Almost everyone on the planet enjoys some sort of privilege or another; it’s up to us to recognize that and exercise our rights in ways that don’t step on others’. Sure, some kids don’t need or want the extra time, but it’s our responsibility --as a society!-- to provide accomodations, even if only .000001% of the population actually takes advantage of them. </p>
<p>As for what I propose we do? I have no problems with the current system. If it’s helped one kid to get a score that more accurately reflects his/her/zie’s abilities, then the system has served its purpose, imo.</p>
<p>Rasberi, I think you said it best. I’m out of here.</p>