Atlantic accommodation abuse article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

I am one. My oldest was an unhooked into an Ivy, incredibly smart with the work ethic to match. Middle has adhd, strong SAT score but didn’t so great in classes as can’t stay organized. Didn’t end up at a school anyone would be concerned about losing a spot from. I definitely want accommodations fairly scrutinized. It also bothered me my oldest from a deflation HS applied in a sea of easy 4.0’s applying. Plenty of issues all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This issue has been addressed as nauseum. Maybe not with respect to this particular editorial, but it has been greatly discussed. For those of us with kids with learning disabilities, it can be a very frustrating topic because learning disabilities are something you can’t see so people assume that you’re gaming the system when you’re not.

This is a lot like the service animal issue.
some people really need them but about 90% of the people claiming they need them do not actually need them.
This ruins it for everyone and now nobody really believes that anything other than a seeing eye dog is a service animal.

So when your 4.0 student with a 1400 on their SAT needs another hour on their SAT because they have some disability, it draws a lot of side-eye

Nobody gives a crap about a 3.0 student with a 950 SAT that needs more time because they can't sit still for 3 straight hours and needs an hour break in the middle of the exam.

My kid has a 4.0 and a 1500 on the SAT *because* they get the accommodations they need. The last time DC took a standardized test without accommodations was 7th grade, preparing for the SSAT, to prove a point. Got the 16th percentile on the reading/writing section and could only get through about 1/3 of the questions. Got 96th percentile with the accommodations (extra time and a reader, human at the time because it was paper testing, screen reader now).

DC is 2e — gifted and severely dyslexic, diagnosed at age 6. DC is not stupid. It’s an access issue, like a ramp for wheelchair users. Make the text *accessible* to DC’s brain, which literally processes language differently, and their *skill* is excellent.

OK, but how do you make performing surgery "accessible," or flying a plane, or the many other careers that require not just skill but speed and efficiency?

Of course not. People love to make this stupid argument. There are plenty of jobs that work with neurodivergent brains. No one — colleges or employers — is required to implement accommodations that make a situation unsafe. REASONABLE accommodations. A person with a paralyzed arm who can’t lift 50 pounds unaided cannot work in a warehouse that requires that physical task. A person who needs extra time to read is not going to become a paralegal with backbreaking loads of fine print to read. If my kid can’t do whatever is needed to be a surgeon within the requirements of the operating room, they can’t be a surgeon. That’s fine.

But no one will know your kid can’t do it until they actually hire him, because his test scores indicate no issues. Duh.

I promise you American Airlines doesn’t give a shit about your SAT score. That’s not how you become a pilot. Or a surgeon. Or even a lawyer.

What would prevent them from becoming a lawyer?

Law school.

My kid gets extra time on tests, but that isn’t going to help manage the volume of work required to successfully complete law school (or medical school, or whatever else). They aren’t going to be able to do it. And if a student with learning differences *can* get through law school (keep in mind no one gets extra time for assignments), then they can probably manage being a lawyer, too.

But they got into law school and got through law school with accommodations. Lawyers charge by the hour. Will their firms bill them out at lower hourly rates?

Sorry, I know there’s a lot of chatter so it’s hard to hear. You don’t get extra time on assignments. If they actually manage to successfully complete law school and not fail because of the load, they can probably also manage being a lawyer.

Which means they didn’t need the accommodations in the first place, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a big fan of accommodations.

So, my kid with 13th percentile processing speed shouldn't get more time on tests? Why, exactly?

For the same reason my kid with 13th percentile sprinting speed shouldn't get a 40-meter head start in the 100 meter dash.

So no glasses for the near or far sighted too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

[Anonymous]

I mean, I don't think it's wrong to call out all the parents claiming some disability for their kids. The disability claim clearly works. Most Stanford students are claiming various disabilities. It's clearly a hook.

Get your disabilities if you can get one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a big fan of accommodations.

So, my kid with 13th percentile processing speed shouldn't get more time on tests? Why, exactly?

For the same reason my kid with 13th percentile sprinting speed shouldn't get a 40-meter head start in the 100 meter dash.

That's a stupid analogy.

The 100-meter dash is a competition to run the fastest. Speed is the point.

The SAT is an assessment of knowledge. If you know geometry, it doesn't matter if it takes you 30 minutes to answer a series of geometry questions and not 15. There are lots of areas of study (and professions) that don't require speed.

Then why is the test timed at all? Everyone deserves the chance to take as much time as they need.

A kid with 13th percentile processing speed needs more time that a kid with median (or above median) processing speed.

Why does this bother you so much? Do you actually think that a kid with processing speed is going to have an advantage over a kid with median processing speed, or do you think that a kid who knows the subject matter, but has slow processing speed, is dumb?

You keep asking this as if to dare us to call your kid dumb. So, I will accommodate you and say yes, I think your kid is dumber than an otherwise identical kid that but with 50th percentile processing speed.

Why do you think that?

Because they are slow.

I say this as someone who went to a stop state flagship on a full scholarship because of her ACT score.

That makes no sense.

My kid gets very good grades and is an excellent writer, with accommodations. There are plenty of careers that are intellectually demanding but do not require a quick processing speed--for example, science research. Even in the medical profession, she could be a pathologist or a radiologist. One of the best brief writers I've ever worked with never argued cases (because he processed slowly) but those who argued them on his behalf were grateful, because they gave us a 40-meter head start in the 100-meter dash. The problem with *not* providing accommodations, like extra time, is that you are potentially missing people who are bright enough to succeed in intellectually challenging fields/positions that do not require speed.

But if they keep getting extra time and accommodations, how will they actually get funnelled into those careers that can accommodate lower processing speed? With the system we have today, they'll continue to be given ways to get around situations where speed IS a key factor and end up in a profession where they are in either over their heads, or - worse - putting others at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

Did you get accommodations in school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think anyone would have a problem disclosing they were wearing glasses or contacts when taking the test. And getting an eye test is far cheaper and easier than a test that would determine whether you were eligible for extra time. Given that barrier, everyone should have an untimed test to truly level the playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a big fan of accommodations.

So, my kid with 13th percentile processing speed shouldn't get more time on tests? Why, exactly?

For the same reason my kid with 13th percentile sprinting speed shouldn't get a 40-meter head start in the 100 meter dash.

That's a stupid analogy.

The 100-meter dash is a competition to run the fastest. Speed is the point.

The SAT is an assessment of knowledge. If you know geometry, it doesn't matter if it takes you 30 minutes to answer a series of geometry questions and not 15. There are lots of areas of study (and professions) that don't require speed.

Then why is the test timed at all? Everyone deserves the chance to take as much time as they need.

A kid with 13th percentile processing speed needs more time that a kid with median (or above median) processing speed.

Why does this bother you so much? Do you actually think that a kid with processing speed is going to have an advantage over a kid with median processing speed, or do you think that a kid who knows the subject matter, but has slow processing speed, is dumb?

You keep asking this as if to dare us to call your kid dumb. So, I will accommodate you and say yes, I think your kid is dumber than an otherwise identical kid that but with 50th percentile processing speed.

Why do you think that?

Because they are slow.

I say this as someone who went to a stop state flagship on a full scholarship because of her ACT score.

That makes no sense.

My kid gets very good grades and is an excellent writer, with accommodations. There are plenty of careers that are intellectually demanding but do not require a quick processing speed--for example, science research. Even in the medical profession, she could be a pathologist or a radiologist. One of the best brief writers I've ever worked with never argued cases (because he processed slowly) but those who argued them on his behalf were grateful, because they gave us a 40-meter head start in the 100-meter dash. The problem with *not* providing accommodations, like extra time, is that you are potentially missing people who are bright enough to succeed in intellectually challenging fields/positions that do not require speed.

But if they keep getting extra time and accommodations, how will they actually get funnelled into those careers that can accommodate lower processing speed? With the system we have today, they'll continue to be given ways to get around situations where speed IS a key factor and end up in a profession where they are in either over their heads, or - worse - putting others at risk.

That's not true at all. These kids only get *reasonable" accommodations. Same with adults. I've actually worked on reasonable accommodation cases. A school or an employer can deny an accommodation if it's unreasonable. Extra time on the SAT: reasonable. It's not harming anyone. Preferential seating in a lecture hall: reasonable. Extra time to treat patients in an emergency room: unreasonable (and impossible). They get funneled into those careers the same way that anyone else does: based on their qualifications. You can graduate from law school, but no one is going to hire you to an appellate lawyer if you are a crappy writer. You're not getting that job as a surgeon if you need extra time to treat patients, but you could get a job as a pathologist. What do you think is going to happen? Someone with slow processing speed with accommodations is going to slip through the cracks and end up killing someone in an ER? If the accommodations are unreasonable in the circumstances, they will be denied. The problem with denying accommodations is that you are preventing kids who could become pathologists because they can't be ER doctors.

Do you think accommodations are work or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

It is OK to be slow. That's why you don't need the footnote. You'd only add the footnote if it isn't OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

It is OK to be slow. That's why you don't need the footnote. You'd only add the footnote if it isn't OK.

It doesn't tell the whole story. The test scores with the grades would tell the complete story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

But if a key aspect of a particular exam is time, and someone has done the test with a relaxation of that key requirement, shouldn't it be noted?
And btw, this is the reason why so many people are gaming the system. If there was a note that the person had accommodations, then you wouldn't see that flagrant abuse.