Claiming a disability on the SAT/ACT - have people been gaming the system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do we have accommodations at all, except in severe cases? I understand if you're blind and need the test read to you, or you have a phsyical disability and can't easily fill in the circles on the sheet -- then extra time seems warranted.

But isn't the goal of the test to measure against other students? Why not have the same testing environment for all then? I realize some will score poorer than others, but isn't that exactly what it's trying to measure?

As an employer, if an aptitude test reflects your job duties, then it's useful to know how much you can accomplish within a fixed amount of time, because that's part of the job.

Would you make a kid who wears glasses take them off to take the test? Other kids are not allowed to have magnifiers so why let the kid with glasses wear them?

The accommodations level the playing field. I have one severe ADD kid and one non-ADD kid. The ADD kid will have to re-read the question over and over again because she forgot what she just read or will become hyper focused on a cough or something else. The non-ADD kid doesn't notice someone coughing and has normal ability to regulate her concentration. ADD is the inability to regulate focus it actually doesn't mean that they can never focus they just have less control on what they focus on.

The ADD kid is a great student with accommodations and excels in subjects where she hyper focuses. She is amazing at math and science. She is a good writer but it takes her a long time. She won't be applying to be an English lit major and colleges see her past IEPs in her record.

NP. Wearing glasses doesn't change the parameters of the exam. A student wearing glasses would still have the same amount of time, take the exam in the same room as everyone else.

Nor does extra time for kids that don't need it.

Then let it be available to all and see what the results look like.

I agree, but SAT won't do it because it will cost them money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid has an adhd diagnosis. Our psych told us to push for all the accommodations now so we have them in case we ever want them.

I heard that as code for testing accommodations for standardized tests.

Ding ding ding!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college board should extend the time for EVERYONE. That will remove the processing speed gaming and truly test the knowledge.

except ... the WHOLE POINT IS TESTING PROCESSING SPEED. save your arguments for the colleges -- let them figure out admissions standards that go beyond processing speed. and stop denying that processing speed is not one important component of ability for some kinds of achievement.

No. The test is not to test speed. The point is to see if somebody has learned enough in 17 years to attend a college.

why do you think the test is timed, then? it tests speed and knowledge.

Consider this. The kid who was really super fast at math facts in 3rd grade, may completely bomb Algebra I. The kid who thoroughly understood numbers but was slow to write or shout out the answers on math fact test, might be a math genius going beyond Calculus in high school. I have seen each. The second one didn't finish the math section on a high school entrance exam even though it was testing things he'd studied 3 years prior to where he was in math at the time. His school doesn't enter kids in math contests like suburban schools do, so on paper, other than looking at the class he is taking and his grade, you might not know you have a math wiz on your hands. With extra time on a standardized test, he'd not miss a question. Unfortunately there is no chance he'll fill the bubble in fast enough to do that timed. But he's really smart, so he's not getting any accommodations. That kid has to hope the school will move him past the SAT pre-cut so they get to the teacher recommendations that explain what he can do.

This is exactly my kid. Gifted in math, but easily distracted in testing situations. He did terribly when we tried Kumon in elementary school, but he is acing Calculus now (one of the highest scorers in his AP Calc class). This is because of extended time. He will go on to college to study applied math. This might not have been an option if he had not had his extended time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to know how many are gaming the system because there is no uniform requirement for testing--at least not that I am aware. My DS did what is considered "the gold standard" a neuropych. test, full language test, and it included IQ and achievement testing. He was re-evaluated 2.5 years later, and will be re-evaluated again prior to high school.
We use accommodations that we feel are the least extreme- in his case, he tests in a less distracting environment. We don't use additional time because, while it would raise his writing scores (he has ADHD and a speech and language impairment), he's managed well without it.
Here is what happens OP (someone mentioned this earlier)-- exceptionally bright kids (mine has an IQ in the mid 140s) mask learning disabilities until high school- at that time, the volume and complexity of work exceeds their ability to compensate. What this means, is that many of these kids (mine included) can work at a higher level than 99% of the population if they are given more time. That is not the same as gaming the system. Everyone does better with more time but the kids with learning issues may jump massive percentage points with even a little more time.
Case in point, my DS's teacher accidentally gave him extra time on the language portion of his ERB a few years ago. His score went from the 7th stanine in independent schools to the 9th stanine, 99th percentile with just 15 or so extra minutes. While there are typical, smart kids who might raise their scores slightly or even by a lot, I will bet that you likely wouldn't see such a dramatic change in comprehension. That's how "real" learning issues work--my DS's scores in language abilities look above average on a standardized test without extended time- but they are not. He was reading Orwell in the 5th grade, winning word masters contests for his entire school, writing poetry, etc.

My kid’s score would jump to 800 on the math portion if he had extra time also. He just didn’t have time to go through all the questions and got a 760. He knew the material.

Congratulations. Please feel comforted that my DC was rejected from almost every school (and only one reach) with a 35 ACT and a lifetime of pretty cool achievements. I hope my child's failure to secure admissions makes you feel vindicated and superior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college board should extend the time for EVERYONE. That will remove the processing speed gaming and truly test the knowledge.

except ... the WHOLE POINT IS TESTING PROCESSING SPEED. save your arguments for the colleges -- let them figure out admissions standards that go beyond processing speed. and stop denying that processing speed is not one important component of ability for some kinds of achievement.

No. The test is not to test speed. The point is to see if somebody has learned enough in 17 years to attend a college.

The point is to see who’s smarter.

correct, and processing speed is one component of cognitive ability.

I fully agree that it's not the ONLY component. but it's one.

I’d say it’s a fairly important component in most jobs.

People who speed through work are not an advantage. A study showed that slower workers are actually better at seeing the big picture and while it may take them longer their work product is better.

This is in relation to scientist and engineers.

Dyslexic learners are also slow but better at many things.

It would be very detrimental to a work place to not know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college board should extend the time for EVERYONE. That will remove the processing speed gaming and truly test the knowledge.

except ... the WHOLE POINT IS TESTING PROCESSING SPEED. save your arguments for the colleges -- let them figure out admissions standards that go beyond processing speed. and stop denying that processing speed is not one important component of ability for some kinds of achievement.

No. The test is not to test speed. The point is to see if somebody has learned enough in 17 years to attend a college.

The point is to see who’s smarter.

No. It's to ensure somebody is smart enough.

The return on investment on an IQ that is above 119 is high, but once you hit 120 - 140ish the return as IQ increases is low, then the return on investment is diminishing, meaning IQs >145 actually has disadvantages.

They are looking for kids in the "sweet sport" and are not total duds.

What are you rambling about?! The SAT is used for competence entry into selective programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college board should extend the time for EVERYONE. That will remove the processing speed gaming and truly test the knowledge.

except ... the WHOLE POINT IS TESTING PROCESSING SPEED. save your arguments for the colleges -- let them figure out admissions standards that go beyond processing speed. and stop denying that processing speed is not one important component of ability for some kinds of achievement.

And how could they test processing speed w accommodations of extra time and even usage of calculators and the abuse of the system?

First, both the SAT and ACT allow every student to use calculators.

These admissions tests now mostly cover knowledge from high school (why are now being used for statewide assessments in non-PARCC or Smarter Blanced States).

Processing speed is not discernible on these exams. And, as has been stated before, unless low processing speed is combined with something -- and has an impact academically -- you will not get accommodations.

My kid is in the 4th percentile for processing speed and gets straight As in his high school classes. He also is in the 99th percentile for reading and has a GAI of 130. He has some brain damage from birth. But despite his low processing speed he does not need extra time on the SAT or ACT, and if we asked he would certainly be turned down. Kids with neurological disorders are complex and don't all present the same way. And some of them figure out strategies over many years to overcome their challenges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid has an adhd diagnosis. Our psych told us to push for all the accommodations now so we have them in case we ever want them.

I heard that as code for testing accommodations for standardized tests.

Ding ding ding!!!!

More like he sounds like a ding dong since that is not how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college board should extend the time for EVERYONE. That will remove the processing speed gaming and truly test the knowledge.

except ... the WHOLE POINT IS TESTING PROCESSING SPEED. save your arguments for the colleges -- let them figure out admissions standards that go beyond processing speed. and stop denying that processing speed is not one important component of ability for some kinds of achievement.

No. The test is not to test speed. The point is to see if somebody has learned enough in 17 years to attend a college.

The point is to see who’s smarter.

correct, and processing speed is one component of cognitive ability.

I fully agree that it's not the ONLY component. but it's one.

I’d say it’s a fairly important component in most jobs.

People who speed through work are not an advantage. A study showed that slower workers are actually better at seeing the big picture and while it may take them longer their work product is better.

This is in relation to scientist and engineers.

Dyslexic learners are also slow but better at many things.

It would be very detrimental to a work place to not know that.

You’re right.

Slow and wrong is bad

Slow and right is better

Fast and wrong is bad

Fast and right is best

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college board should extend the time for EVERYONE. That will remove the processing speed gaming and truly test the knowledge.

except ... the WHOLE POINT IS TESTING PROCESSING SPEED. save your arguments for the colleges -- let them figure out admissions standards that go beyond processing speed. and stop denying that processing speed is not one important component of ability for some kinds of achievement.

And how could they test processing speed w accommodations of extra time and even usage of calculators and the abuse of the system?

First, both the SAT and ACT allow every student to use calculators.

These admissions tests now mostly cover knowledge from high school (why are now being used for statewide assessments in non-PARCC or Smarter Blanced States).

Processing speed is not discernible on these exams. And, as has been stated before, unless low processing speed is combined with something -- and has an impact academically -- you will not get accommodations.

My kid is in the 4th percentile for processing speed and gets straight As in his high school classes. He also is in the 99th percentile for reading and has a GAI of 130. He has some brain damage from birth. But despite his low processing speed he does not need extra time on the SAT or ACT, and if we asked he would certainly be turned down. Kids with neurological disorders are complex and don't all present the same way. And some of them figure out strategies over many years to overcome their challenges.

Calculators usage - not allowed on all portions unless one has accommodations. What I find curious is the resistance from parents who have accommodations for their kids to support extended time for everyone- if it is truly testing for knowledge, why not?

[Anonymous]

It sounds to me as though a poster or two may not believe in the science behind the neuro-psychological testing recommended by board-certified doctors.

This compounds the problem of determining who is deserving of the accommodations and who does not.

My DC was encouraged to drop an AP course in a room full of administrators while looking at a form filled out by the teacher claiming DC didn't need or use any accommodations approved by the same school. The withdrawl of a yearlong course in the middle of April is on DC's transcrip. Teacher refused to provide ANY accommodationst. (Gritting my teeth).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do we have accommodations at all, except in severe cases? I understand if you're blind and need the test read to you, or you have a phsyical disability and can't easily fill in the circles on the sheet -- then extra time seems warranted.

But isn't the goal of the test to measure against other students? Why not have the same testing environment for all then? I realize some will score poorer than others, but isn't that exactly what it's trying to measure?

As an employer, if an aptitude test reflects your job duties, then it's useful to know how much you can accomplish within a fixed amount of time, because that's part of the job.

Would you make a kid who wears glasses take them off to take the test? Other kids are not allowed to have magnifiers so why let the kid with glasses wear them?

The accommodations level the playing field. I have one severe ADD kid and one non-ADD kid. The ADD kid will have to re-read the question over and over again because she forgot what she just read or will become hyper focused on a cough or something else. The non-ADD kid doesn't notice someone coughing and has normal ability to regulate her concentration. ADD is the inability to regulate focus it actually doesn't mean that they can never focus they just have less control on what they focus on.

The ADD kid is a great student with accommodations and excels in subjects where she hyper focuses. She is amazing at math and science. She is a good writer but it takes her a long time. She won't be applying to be an English lit major and colleges see her past IEPs in her record.

NP. Wearing glasses doesn't change the parameters of the exam. A student wearing glasses would still have the same amount of time, take the exam in the same room as everyone else.

Nor does extra time for kids that don't need it.

Then let it be available to all and see what the results look like.

+1

Let all of the kids have extended time. Change the exam duration time from 2 hours to 3 hours. It's fine to change the parameters of the exam as long as all the students are taking the exam under same conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds to me as though a poster or two may not believe in the science behind the neuro-psychological testing recommended by board-certified doctors.

This compounds the problem of determining who is deserving of the accommodations and who does not.

My DC was encouraged to drop an AP course in a room full of administrators while looking at a form filled out by the teacher claiming DC didn't need or use any accommodations approved by the same school. The withdrawl of a yearlong course in the middle of April is on DC's transcrip. Teacher refused to provide ANY accommodationst. (Gritting my teeth).

Because there is abuse of the system, why not give extended time to everyone? We want to test for knowledge so let every kid get extended time and a calculator for all portions of an exam

[Anonymous]

*transcript

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college board should extend the time for EVERYONE. That will remove the processing speed gaming and truly test the knowledge.

except ... the WHOLE POINT IS TESTING PROCESSING SPEED. save your arguments for the colleges -- let them figure out admissions standards that go beyond processing speed. and stop denying that processing speed is not one important component of ability for some kinds of achievement.

No. The test is not to test speed. The point is to see if somebody has learned enough in 17 years to attend a college.

The point is to see who’s smarter.

No. It's to ensure somebody is smart enough.

The return on investment on an IQ that is above 119 is high, but once you hit 120 - 140ish the return as IQ increases is low, then the return on investment is diminishing, meaning IQs >145 actually has disadvantages.

They are looking for kids in the "sweet sport" and are not total duds.

What are you rambling about?! The SAT is used for competence entry into selective programs.

No. It is not. It is to determine if somebody is smart enough to play.