<p>coase, perhaps they do not “need” the full 100% extra time, but need more than 50% extra time? Why does it jump from 50% to 100% extra time for all? I think it does to make it easier for proctors while doing the right thing for the person with the disability. Perhaps the right thing for those without disabilities to give the person that requires 75% extra time that extra amount of time, without having it jump to 100% extra time. Same for the person with the disability who just needs 60% extra time. </p>
<p>Perhaps some tests require more reading, and the person has a disability that effects reading in a timely manner. Does that mean that they require exra time on a math test? I think that the ACT and SAT offers extra time for all sections regardless of the disability! If one has trouble with math (ie: aligning numbers), why do that individual get extra time for the writing section on the SATs/ACTs? The only reason that I can think of, is that it keeps things simple for one proctor (everyone in the room is getting the same amount of extra time for everything). Is this fair to the students who do not have disabilities?</p>
<p>northeastmom - just a slight correction - when students get extra time approved by collegeboard or ACT - sometimes it is for all sections - sometimes it is just for reading or just for math. Sometimes they do not get extra time but “small group setting” which means rather than testing with all the other kids in the gym - they get their own room, and proctor. Sometimes they get “computer usage” meaning they get to type their essay rather than write it by hand. The variations are enormous and the challenges at the hs level to set up testing locations and hire proctors for all of the multiple scenarios is exhausting and expensive.</p>
<p>One thing I have observed is that it is the wealthier kids who are more likely to have extended time or other accommodations for testing than the low-income kids. Why is this? Because you have to have several thousand dollars available to pay for several days of private testing by an education psychologist to document that you “need” accommodations. I have been witness to so many students who “need” accommodations for the SAT and ACT, but then when it is time to take AP exams and they have already been admitted into college - suddenly they don’t feel like bothering with having the extended time. I am sure their are some kids who truly need and deserve these accommodations, but there are many wealthy families who manipulate the system to get extra time for their kids in order to achieve higher test scores.</p>
<p>I hope you didn’t really mean this the way it came out. So it’s “fake” LD kids that use the accommodations, based on their needs, that they were offered? (And of course I can’t help thinking…only on CC do we find parents of LD kids deciding that their kid is a “truer” LD kid that some other type of LD kid.)</p>
<p>On the subject of accommodations in general…go read about Steven Hawking. He was an unimpressive student with mediocre grades until he got AML. Once he got AML, he received tutoring and other services to help him function given his physical disability, but at the same time, developed the theories for which is is now famous. Some folks theorize that the individual tutoring and other services addressed other learning needs which initially caused him to perform very differently than he did later in life. Certainly his disease didn’t make him smarter.</p>
<p>My S1 is a PAINFULLY slow reader. Does he have a learning disability - I don’t know, because I never thought to have him tested. Would his ACT scores have been higher if he was allowed extra time - I think yes. </p>
<p>If he would have tested higher, he might have applied and gained acceptance into a school where the daily requirements were too difficult. Then what happens when he gets into the work force? Will he be given extra time? I think not. So for my son, I believe we would be setting him up to fail.</p>
<p>Rockville, our district paid for all of my son’s testing in first grade and have paid for comphrehensive testing every three years, it’s required (testing every three years) by his IEP. I’m not sure if this is a state regulation or a district regulation, but I was told way back when that I was welcome to have private testing done, but that the testing that would be used for his IEP would be done by the school. Of course I was glad not to have to pay the thousands to have identical tests administered.</p>
<p>A simple solution and it may already be in place is for the national testing services and colleges not to award extra time unless there is a documented IEP in place for a certain amount of time prior to the testing. To keep an IEP in place it must be “renewed” every 3-4 years with new testing and the testing is very thorough spanning several days, many meetings, reams of documentation and paperwork that has to be read and signed, etc. etc. It’s not a “simple” process to get an IEP. </p>
<p>In our district at age 16 the student must be included in the IEP meetings. It’s a rather humbling experience for the kids to “hear” people discussing their issues, successes and struggles. My son just went through this a month ago for the first time. This is not fun and games by any stretch of the imagination. I can’t imagine why any parent would want to put themselves through this to game the system if the system were transparent.</p>
<p>There are barriors to employment so legally I could see the opening for barriers to entry into colleges and unis. I just took a new job. It requires drug testing - a nice hunk of hair was cut off my head (I wonder what they do with bald gentlement because it was a goodly chunk??). I could “prove” through my own personal medical records, testimony by my physician, etc. etc. that I am not using specific drugs, but the requirement is part of the acceptance to the company. I’m not sure I see a difference between those types of barriors and full disclosoure by everyone in the college application process.</p>
<p>Ready to Roll…I was only speculating not passing judgement. Clearly there are probably kids who feel comfortable utilizing the accomodations because it makes them feel safer and are comfortable socially with that. I just know that having an IEP can be a stigma that many kids do not want to reveal and some will resist using them because of the perceived stigma. My son can get copies of the teachers notes, other students cannot for whatever reason. He doesn’t “like” to ask for them, even if they would help, because he gets “flak” from the other students and feels like they “think” he is the advanced classes because of the extra help etc and not because he is cognitively capable. I probably did not articulate myself well and for that I apologize.</p>
<p>According to what I have heard and seen in our area, students who specifically get extra time, get it for all sections across the board.</p>
<p>As far as the rich getting accommodations vs. the poor student not:</p>
<p>I have a friend who is a psychologist who has a private office. He has told me that he has great difficulty writing a report after testing, which helps a student who has not had an IEP or 504 plan in place get accommodations. If the student had an IEP or 504 plan a few years prior to seeking something like extra time on the ACT/SAT, then they are more likely to receive that accommodation for standardized testing. So, in his experience, paying for testing in his office does not mean one is going to get those accommodations.</p>
<p>This student’s situation was complicated: she was a recruited athlete, yet was claiming a disability that affects coordination; apparently her testing was out of date; apparently her brother–also a recruited athlete at P–had been given the accommodation she asked for; apparently the independent consultant to whose selection the family consented agreed with the university that 50% extra time plus a variety of other accommodations were sufficient, and so forth.</p>
<p>There are a lot of very ugly comments on the Daily Princetonian site, I’m sorry to say. Some show a profound ignorance of the entire subject. Some accuse this student in particular of being somewhat of a malingerer. (Which may or may not be true.) As coase says, extra time is a blunt instrument. Many students could benefit significantly from extra time on many tests.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I think that the entire issue of accommodations is clouded by the fact that some families do indeed game the system, while others have kids with genuine need who go undiagnosed.</p>
<p>Thanks for updating us on this. I was wondering what happened.</p>
<p>oldfort, the thread you referred to was about a student with CAPD, not dyslexia. Receiving extra time to take tests- regardless of whether it is the SAT or tests during college- have no effect on outcomes for students with THAT particular disorder. There is no way to game the system with a diagnosis of CAPD. Get your facts straight before you throw all LD’s into the same “box”.</p>
<p>coase, My experience is very opposite the very lucky students you teach. Our school routinely gives only 50% extra time to ld kids who need much more time. Even though testing may show that kids need 100% or 200% more time, the special ed head twists the arms of educators to say that they don’t see a need in their classroom-- hence, there is no “educational need.” That is in public school, below grade 12-- where kid are covered by the stronger IEP laws. </p>
<p>Oldfort, almost all colleges receive federal aid barring a handful like Hillsdale. Let’s put it this way: if they give out federal financial aid (like Pell Grants), they must comply with ADA and nondiscrimination laws. Furthermore, I’m not sure what you mean that a student needs to be “labeled” to get accommodations. I know a kid who has a life-threatening allergy to seafood. The college sends that student menus and makes sure that the student (who lives on campus) has a bag lunch if only seafood is available. That is covered by ADA but I’m not sure the student needed much of a “label.” </p>
<p>And the quote you included is key that the school doesn’t have to provide an accommodation if it is “a fundamental alteration of a recipient’s program or impose(s) an undue burden” <em>however</em> note that it must be a <em>fundamental</em> alteration of the <em>program,</em> not just an alteration to a means of assessment. </p>
<p>Momofthreeboys, Federal law requires that students with IEPs be reassessed every three years. Most districts interpret that to mean re-tested; some do not. College disability law covers 504 and IEP kids so 504 kids would not necessarily have “testing” on file. One of my kids needed medical accommodations for the SAT and it was MUCH harder to get than most LDs or similar. (They basically denied accommodations so my kid had to take the test without the accommodation. Only after the kid got sick in the middle of the testing room, the school invalidated the test and the other kids-- I’m sure-- were interrupted did the College Board grant the accomodation.) Oh, and parents who pay for testing usually do so because their kids are either compensating better, have more subtle disabilities or the parents are arguing with a school staff that does not want to test because they do not want to provide accommodations. It is for that population-- not the kids who are identified by the school system in a lower grade-- that parental income usually makes a difference.</p>
<p>I am very clear on my facts, at least I read up before I make any comment on CC. If you read my post correctly, I was making a point about whether a college is aware of student’s disability before he or she is admitted, that’s the only reason I referenced that thread. Read before you comment.</p>
<p>You can’t have it both ways, not disclosing for fear of getting rejected, then after admittance want accommodations. </p>
<p>Just a bit of disclosure, I know the OP of that particular thread very we’ll and know the son. She asked me personally about what to do and I asked her to post on CC. </p>
<p>When I said labeled, a direct quote from the gov Ed site. They meant tested and met the criteria.</p>
<p>Oldfort, no, a person does not have to be tested to be covered by ADA. They have to be disabled-- but it covers more than learning disabilities so there is no litmus test. A student in a wheelchair or a university employee with asthma is covered by ADA and does not have to undergo ‘testing’ although it would be reasonable to ask for a doctor’s note.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion. I have heard that students who receive extra time on SATs and ACTs do not have that fact reported to colleges when they apply. Is this true? Strikes me as unfair, because given enough time most students, if not all, would score higher. Also, I have often felt that all students should have 100% extra time on standardized tests. Does high intelligence have to be quicksilver?</p>
<p>I don’t think we know enough to perfectly match the accommodation to the specifics of the kid. With respect to SATs, stark and onceburnt, the College Board did a study that showed that extra time enabled a statistically significant increase in scores for kids with LDs but did not yield an increase for non-LD kids. [I suspect that they were hoping it came out another way as that would have enabled them not to have to worry about accommodations]. How this plays out with respect to college tests that are longer than can be done in the 1 hour or 3 hours by a non-LD kid, I don’t know. That may provide some advantage to the kid with LD iff the kid got 100% extra time and actually needed less. But, when my son’s college grants extra time, it almost always grants 50% extra time. The 100% extra time was sufficiently unusual that the dean of disabilities services sent out an email to his profs saying that they normally granted 50% extra time but had reviewed extensive neuropsychological testing and was confident that 100% extra time was appropriate. So, I suspect that there are not a lot of people with that accommodation.</p>
<p>Osprey, on the disclosure issue, it is trickier than you suggest. Schools are not supposed to discriminate in admissions either. If that were true, it would not make a difference if the LDs were disclosed upfront. But, I’d be quite surprised if they don’t discriminate in admissions against kids with disclosed LDs – like my son’s two profs who said kids with LDs don’t do that well in their courses. So, there is an incentive not to disclose and no legal requirement to disclose. Without the discrimination, I would agree with you.</p>
<p>onceburnt, see my comment above. The College Board used to put an asterisk on the scores from tests with accommodations, but if I recall correctly, they faced a class action lawsuit that argued that if all the accommodations did was to create a level playing field for the kids with LDs, the asterisk was discriminated against kids with LDs. I believe TCB settled.</p>
<p>I can state with complete confidence that Princeton does not regard itself as a trade school, nor as an institution preparing students for jobs taking timed tests. No Princeton graduate is qualified for every job. A high-pressure fast-paced job probably wouldn’t be right for a Princeton grad who had gotten extra time on tests. Then again, Shawson, for example, would be well qualified for many analytical jobs that most Princeton grads, however smart, hardworking and undisabled, couldn’t do.</p>
<p>Someone asked earlier about whether West Point and the service academies provide accommodations: No. Prospective appointees have to clear DODMERB health requirements, and can’t, for example, use ADD medications, have asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, orthopedic problems, migraines, or vision problems that can’t be corrected with eyeglasses. At least a few years ago, the rules also allowed West Point to turn away applicants with severe acne or facial scarring. Applicants with visible tattoos can still be turned away.</p>
<p>I believe that many (perhaps all but the tattoo restriction) are also restrictions on those who enlist in the armed forces, and since you’re part of the armed forces once you enroll in one of the academies, that makes some sense. (Well, all except the severe acne/scarring exclusions, which seem to be more of a “what we want cadets to look like” cosmetic issue.)</p>
<p>One of the earlier posters was concerned that the student didn’t proceed to a judicial decision that could have been used for enforcement in the future. I think it would need to be affirmed at the appellate level for that, which would require an appeal by the losing party first – but anyway, an Office of Civil Rights Consent Decree can provide substantially more than a court decision is likely to provide.</p>
<p>Our school district entered into a consent decree related to ESL services, and as a result they changed the entire way they assessed and provided ESL services to be in accord with the decree. The people who first raised the issue with OCR got far more than I think they ever would have in court.</p>