<p>"Children with legitimate problems will still be able to get extra time. I haven't seen one denied. It is those with the "recent diagnoses" who may not, and I understand the reasoning very well."</p>
<p>You haven't seen "one" denied? Are you on the accommodations committee of CB? How you could possibly make such a universalist statement, not having access to the number of cases they receive every year? I'm glad that in your little corner of the world you have omniscience, but your "knowledge" and "sight" is highly limited in the wider scheme of themes. Examples do not legitimize your statements, particularly one of your more outrageous ones:</p>
<p>"For children with legitimate processing delays, the problem didn't pop up when they were 15 or 16, but has been present all their lives," </p>
<p>^^with a mild nod to the most important phrase in that sentence:</p>
<p>"or certainly since work required quicker processing..." </p>
<p>^^Which, by the way, if you were a professional in the field, which clearly you're not, you would know is NOT "by middle school" IF that LD student is particularly bright. (And usually only if he/she is particularly bright.)</p>
<p>It is a category of LD student called the Highly Compensating that is most impacted by CB policies, because this is the category that is most often never accommodated below "age 15 or 16", yet can be as affected by lack of accommodation as a student accommodated since grade two.</p>
<p>The HC child can often tough it out until particularly complex subject matter arrives suddenly in grades 9 (if in Honors classes) and 10. And even then he/she may continue to cope & compensate in CLASSROOM work well enough not to be noticed by teachers & testing administrators. Classroom work & homework will not necessarily reveal the extent of the processing problems which manifest, for example, with foreign language (typically not begun in earnest until age 14, with significant demands in that language not expected until age 15, the second year of that language). That's just one example. </p>
<p>The tests in high school and in college (edad), as well as the universal opportunity to prep for these to develop strategies, are dramatically different than standardized ENTRANCE (gatekeeper) tests such as SAT or ACT. Apples & oranges? Try grapes and watermelon, or asparagus & artichokes. </p>
<p>I would contrast the SAT/ACT with an AP exam, for one. While the volume of an AP exam is often more condensed than a college final exam, it does more closely mimic a college-level challenge in category (timed recall of RECENT CLASSROOM material) than does an SAT/ACT. However, there is a readiness difference, intellectually, between a junior in h.s. and a college student. This may be easy to forget with all the college-bound curriculum our kids engage in, but the brain does keep developing, the learning curve continue to get shorter when it comes to processing in general, and to integrating that processing. A junior in college may pass a high-content exam similar to the AP US History exam more easily than when a junior in high school fresh from the specific course. (A student even with no LD.) The brain has developed a readiness for assimilative processing at age 20 that is not as mature at age 16.</p>
<p>In general, LD'ers, even the borderline & HC variety, are usually advised to limit the number of AP courses/exams in h.s. Actually, this is realistic relative to college. It is less likely that a college load would result in the equivalent of, for example, 5 "AP-style" exams during finals week, but more like 3 in that category, 2 exams in a very different category not requiring that level of memorization/fact recall, but rather application of content and even creative integration of that content -- an area that the Highly Compensating, High-IQ LD student often excels in.</p>
<p>What I see on this thread is tremendous lack of understanding of the subject, combined with prejudice, combined with a preference for personal stories as somehow supportive of a blanket denial of those students most legitimately needing the accommodation for STANDARDIZED TESTING ONLY. One of the many problems with CB policies is that the highly compensating LD'er often does not want (even if he/she needs it) the classroom accommodation, because he/she -- particularly if an artsy type -- has invented enormously creative ways around his or her LD, and is used to that style of coping, which he/she has found successful, if time-consuming & complex. Simply put, the CB policy is not designed with the highly performing LD student in mind. But hey, this is no different than what has been true in this country for years: the most neglected category of student is the gifted student (as opposed to merely the high-achieving robotic memorizer). He is the least recognized as having different needs & outstanding capabilities & valuable academic talents which should be fostered. If he has even one LD manifestation he is labeled as lazy or underperforming (because of the contrast between the obvious IQ/talent & the occasional struggle with a timed test), when in reality he is outperforming his non-LD classmates on most measures of achievement & ability. </p>
<p>The reason that the CB does not report accommodation to colleges is simply that the accommodation is irrelevant. What accommodation does is to allow that student to perform only to the best of his ability, not beyond that ability. That is why, yes, the accredited testing (verifying that) is so critical. I've never denied that CB should require evidence of professional testing. Fine if they prefer the school district's test. Unfortunately, as the author of that article found out from experience, almost too late, CB misleads the public into believing that non-school tests are just as acceptable; if you think I'm wrong, then you haven't read their literature. I have that current literature. It is deceptive, in fact inaccurate, as the linked article demonstrated with the family's experience.</p>
<p>Allmusic has no statistics supporting a claim that the number of cheaters is greater than the number of legitimate applications. In fact the reports from the CB would tend to support the reverse proportion. But family results also support my contention that CB is overwhelmed with authoritatively tested accommodation applicants, and prefers a $500,000 salary to a $500,000 investment in educated, trained staff to work this level of load. No different than the NY office admitting to me several summers ago that CB is overwhelmed with the population of test-takers & had not the staff to handle routine administration of the SAT for the general population.</p>
<p>As to the retort about the IRS, this is fruits vs. vegetables. If I am randomly audited or my returns scrutinized, I have a grievance avenue, and further, I have a window of time to redress my grievances. It's a pain in the butt, & may even slow down my life, but does not prevent me from entering a college of my intellectual peers as a freshman, immediately from high school. The window of opportunity for a 4 yr college as an 18yr old is short & unforgiving. In some cases, depending on the college, the applicant may appeal, but in this college market, the likelihood of a victorious appeal is slim. The consequences of the CB's behavior are far more significant & permanent in terms of one's future than the IRS "cracking down" on all because of the illegality of some. </p>
<p>It's interesting that the same people who believe that maybe we just shouldn't let LD kids into college -- LOL -- probably have no difficulty understanding why Stephen Hawkings can be brilliant, why blind people are not intellectually impaired unless the blindness is accompanied by a truly debilitating disease limiting intellectual <em>capacity</em>.</p>
<p>Edad, your last 2 posts do show that you seem to have huge misunderstandings about what LD is and is not. It is not stupidity or slow-wittedness or a sign of 4-yr college unreadiness. However, depending on the degree of LD, combined with the level of intelligence, quality of preparation, combined with the level of interest in academics period, some LD'ers may yes, be better off not in a very demanding college program, or a highly selective college, or any college. But so are many non-LD'ers not suited to traditional college. In fact, most of the students I teach are not going to 4-yrs, and none of those who are not going, are LD. They're not going because (1) their earlier education was abysmal, therefore their brains have not developed to a level needed for college, and/or (2) their immediate environment does not encourage it, for one reason or another, (3) they do not meet qualification standards for even a moderately selective college.</p>
<p>H, Y, and P all include some LD students. It's just that they are the highly functioning variety.</p>