<p>Thought this might be relevant/helpful to some parents out there . . . . .</p>
<p>
[quote]
Diane Metcalf-Leggette ’13 is suing the University for refusing to grant her extended time on examinations, the New Jersey Law Journal reported on Tuesday. Metcalf-Leggette, who filed the suit on Monday, claims that she should be given extra time on tests because of her learning disabilities.</p>
<p>. . .</p>
<p>Metcalf-Leggette’s complaint asserted that she has four learning disabilities, which were diagnosed in 2003: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), mixed-receptive-expressive language disorder, disorder of written expression and developmental coordination disorder. The conditions, according to the complaint, hinder her ability to focus, process information and communicate in writing.</p>
<p>The suit comes after a series of meetings with school officials during which Metcalf-Leggette sought accommodation for her disabilities. The University currently accommodates Metcalf-Leggette’s disabilities by offering her a “reduced distraction testing environment,” a limit of one exam per day and a 10-minute break each hour, the law journal reported.
<p>Also, to clarify for those who aren’t familiar, a 100% time extension is [typically] the equivalent of double the amount of time allotted (so a student with a 100% time accommodation would be given 120 minutes when his/her peers are given 60 minutes, for example).</p>
<p>Time was when these kids were just labeled as stupid and everyone moved on. Now, I’m not saying the young woman is stupid- clearly she’s not, extra time granted to get where she is or not (and athlete admissions bump to boot). However, she IS being accomodated already, and she’s complaining she’s not being accomodated ENOUGH.</p>
<p>I remember in high school my step brother had trouble hand-writing his essays to the point it was considered a “disability” thanks to his mom’s efforts, and he got to type all in class essays. He has many issues, but a learning disability was never one of them, and he is a very smart kid (he attended Cornell until recently). But it always struck me as unfair- not that he be allowed to type, because clearly it helped him- but that I not be, and that there be no asterix next to his name for college admissions. I type almost three times as fast as I write by hand, and my hand writing is poor (no matter how much I practice it improves little). The inequity to every OTHER student in cases like these (not with extra time, but most other accommodations) seems downright unjust.</p>
<p>Not to mention, is this young woman’s future employer going to give her 100% extended time on her project deadlines? I hope so, for her sake.</p>
<p>this is getting out of control. Where do we draw the line??? If someone who is participating in an athletic competition has some type of physical impairment, should he be given twice as much time or whatever to perform the same feat? If a solider with some type of impairment can shoot only half as fast as the normal ones, would the enemy give him allow twice as much time too?</p>
<p>I am all for accommodating people with special needs. But, the learning disability issue just does not come across as something that should be accommodated without a boundary. Where do we draw the line between disability and the lack of aptitude? My niece has a problem with math: she just does not process the mathematical information in an efficient manner and it takes her twice as long to go through the whole problem set compared with other kids. Should she be allowed twice as much time for her tests? I don’t think so. Her inability to process it as well as some other kids is just part of her overall aptitude. </p>
<p>Regardless of her (the P student in question) native intelligence, if she has a serious cognitive impairment that makes it difficult to keep up with the school work and tests, why did she decide to attend a school that has a very high bar and expectation for academic rigor so much so that not only she needs to be accommodated for her special needs, which the school is complying with, but accommodated to the degree that school is not willing to go?</p>
<p>Maybe I should try telling girls to give me automatic second dates ;P</p>
<p>More seriously though, I can understand giving accommodations to people who have serious physical issues (say partial blindness or something). I have a friend who is deaf and needed assistance taking notes in lectures, which I think is perfectly reasonable. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to walk in and expect Princeton to make everything (possibly) disproportionately easier for her because of this “disorder.” Princeton’s a hard school. It’s hard to take a long test and do well on it in a short period of time. You’re not going to feel comfortable on every test, most likely. Even with the accommodations, she’s likely just feeling the brunt that is Princeton, and may be using her disorder as a way to alleviate that pressure.</p>
<p>Of course, I know next to nothing about attention disorders. Otherwise, I’ve always considered “learning disabilities” to be of a different breed. It’s great that she’s pushing forth to higher education in light of her disadvantages, but she’s going to run into troubles if she’s expecting those challenges to bend back to meet her halfway all the time. Like ROTCherewego said, where do we draw the line? Does she expect Princeton to extend the accommodations more and more until she achieves her desired grades? How do they determine what’s considered a fair timeframe for leveling the playing field?</p>
<p>I believe in accommodation for kids with LD, particularly with very slow processing speeds (the kids that need the extra time). However, these accommodations have to be made with an eye towards the kid’s future. For instance, extended time helps a kid on an SAT to show a college that he/she <em>does</em> know the math but needs more time to figure it out…but I would also expect that kid to be entering a college, and ultimately a profession, where he/she would never be required to process at a “typical” speed. I’m obviously talking about kids who aren’t going to Princeton. When I hear about Ivy kids asking for more time on exams, I’m just not getting it as much…as another poster stated, what’s going to happen when she is out in the real world with her Ivy degree? Expectations of her will not jibe with her real world performance.</p>
<p>However, I do think it’s interesting that they gave her brother what was asked for but not her. I’m sure there is a lot more to that story though.</p>
<p>I teach in a college, and this is a standard accommodation. I have no horse in this race; neither of my kids had any accommodation despite one with ADD.</p>
<p>However, if she has these diagnoses I see no problem with Princeton granting extra time.</p>
<p>Clearly, she applied with these.</p>
<p>I have to wonder if her brother was a more valuable athlete.</p>
<p>I think if the school admitted her, it’s Princeton’s obligation to create conditions in which she can succeed. If her athletic contribution was that valuable to the college, I think the disabilities office should allow for extra time.</p>
<p>Other standard accommodations can include off site testing (in an environment controlled and regulated by the disabilities office), aide reading material, and permission to do all work on a laptop.</p>
<p>I understand some of the philosophical debate; I am merely reporting standard practice.</p>
<p>If we allow the LD’s exist and don’t impact the level of actual thinking and comprehension then I see no harm.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with the judge who denied the injunction. I don’t think there is any way Princeton could fairly adjust this grade after the testing had been completed. That situation does seem to have the potential to be unfair to either the student in question or her peers if her adjustment result in arbitrary improvements in her grades.</p>
<p>It’s a court issue. I think that those kids who get extra time for SATs and other standardized tests should have that indicated on the results so that those assessing the tests know that. </p>
<p>There comes a point in time in life when time is a factor in getting through material, and it is important for someone who can go through the stuff quickly. Life does not always give extended time for things.</p>
<p>It seems Princeton didn’t realize the extent of her disability when they admitted her. How did she write a decent timed SAT essay, even with extended time? </p>
<p>And how accomodating will the real world be? Seems she needs to be in a less intensive college atmosphere, and also in a program where she can focus on her strengths, whatever they may be.</p>
<p>True, but it seems that Princeton changed its policy midstream. It’s not as if the young woman was asking for an accommodation that had not been part of what they already allowed.</p>
<p>I think this is a pedagogical issue, and if we go about unraveling these accommodating we are basically denying the validity of the LD diagnosis.</p>
<p>However, if Princeton did change its policy it should certainly grandfather in students accepted under an older policy. This may have been a deal breaker when deciding which college to attend.</p>
<p>It sounds as if they did create conditions in which they felt she would succeed. Perhaps the disclosure at admissions was not complete on the part of the applicant. Who knows. My feeling is that there are many thresholds to acceptance within the universal college and university system but perhaps the transparency related to necessary accomodations and thresholds to acceptance is not there on either the part of the college or on the part of applicants. The presumption is that if a college accepts a student, the student has the capacity to be successful within that particular college structure. Perhaps she chose Princeton, based on how her brother was handled and thought she would gain additional accomodations that were not afforded her at admittance. Either way, the outcome will be interesting. If she is not afforded additional accomodations it will be a warning shot to colleges, parents and applicants to be forthright. The concept of “ability to succeed” encompasses much more than sheer intellectual horsepower. My gut tells me the college may prevail in their position as clearly the student here most likely had other choices.</p>
<p>My statement refers to the assertion that these accommodations were already in place. If they were not, then I think there is room for debate. If they were, I stand by my statement.</p>
<p>^^I do agree. I also think that the fact that extra-time is not documented on standardized tests is cloudy. If a student is going to ask for those accomodations in the college/uni setting then it should be documented throughout their transcript if those accomodations were in place during the pre-college years, including standardized tests. I imagine that legality will be tested again soon. “I had extra time but I’m not going to tell you and oh by the way I need extra time during mid-terms and finals” seems a particularly unsettling premise and legally shaky.</p>
<p>It’s not entirely clear, but it appears to me that there was a change of policy in the disability office when there was a change of leadership. The girl’s own brother received the exact accomodation she is asking for, and it was continued–for him–as a “courtesy.” I think it’s notable that she received the extended time accomodation in high school, and I think it matters whether Princeton knew it or not.
It could be that the new leadership in the disability office believes that the old leadership was giving excessive accomdations to recruited athletes.</p>
<p>my oldest daughter had extended time on tests, but it was time and a half - not 100% OR double the amount of time. Sometimes she utilized it and sometimes she didn’t. MOST professors allow for some differences in test taking and on the average, most students don’t take the whole time allowed (therefore- some extra time is usually already built in to the equation). In this case, it’s clear she is an athlete and I am curious if she had the stats to get into Princeton without her athletic hook. I think Princeton would be hard for anyone, but when your dividing your time between athletics and academics, it’s probably even harder at the DI level.</p>
<p>Also… I wonder if she takes medication to treat the ADHD as I know we got a lot of paperwork originally sent with the whole packet of NCAA info. It was my opinion that it was a lot of hoops to jump through if you took medication and were a NCAA athlete.</p>
<p>I have a question and I don’t know how to ask it without getting flamed…I don’t mean to be insensitive at all. I have a favorite nephew in college who receives accomodations (extra time, special testing conditions, etc.)…</p>
<p>what happens when these kids get out in the real world? How do they handle the stresses of a real job in real time?</p>
<p>Do employers give these employees extra time to do their work, or give them a lesser workload?</p>
<p>My nephew has had trouble handling every part time job he has ever had–no job has ever lasted beyond a few weeks. I worry for him.</p>
<p>I remember reading about a girl who had severe LD but managed to get into medical school. Then she ran into trouble and really could not manage. She had been told repeatedly she could “do anything she put her mind to” but it was not enough to want to be a doctor…she just couldn’t do the work in the time alloted.</p>
<p>I would use the analogy of her LD making her “blind”, but she didn’t have the accomodations a blind person would have had (material read to her, for example.) It was really sad.</p>