The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should not be allowed to score above a 1300 with accommodations.

That will cut down on fakers and cheats.

Those with real learning disabilities can choose extra time or not. Whichever is best for them. This is a way to endure kids with learning disabilities are not shut out from higher education. They may continue to learn in college with their accommodations. I agree it’s best for society when more people are educated.

The kid who scores a 1560 using accommodations will either need to take the 1300 or see what they can actually do with standard time.

. Okay, but I think this should include ALL types of accommodations. Like glasses. No one should be able to take the SATs with glasses without also taking the hit to their score.

It makes more sense just to do this for extra time. We have a child who qualifies for extra time and would be ok with this.

Other accommodations actually make taking the test take longer, so they also need extra time because of those accommodations. For example, a person who needs a scribe automatically gets 50% more time because it just takes longer to take the test with a scribe.

If you need a scribe or have profound dyslexia use the accommodations! Nobody is taking them away in this scenario.

. In this scenario, they will be further penalized for being disabled.

If you cannot read I’m not sure you should be taking the SAT anyway. Those are serious accommodations needed for college and an SAT score would be the least of my worries. If you are needing to show you are college capable a 1300 is sufficient—you will get into a college. Does it really need to be a top 25?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should not be allowed to score above a 1300 with accommodations.

That will cut down on fakers and cheats.

Those with real learning disabilities can choose extra time or not. Whichever is best for them. This is a way to endure kids with learning disabilities are not shut out from higher education. They may continue to learn in college with their accommodations. I agree it’s best for society when more people are educated.

The kid who scores a 1560 using accommodations will either need to take the 1300 or see what they can actually do with standard time.

. Okay, but I think this should include ALL types of accommodations. Like glasses. No one should be able to take the SATs with glasses without also taking the hit to their score.

It makes more sense just to do this for extra time. We have a child who qualifies for extra time and would be ok with this.

Other accommodations actually make taking the test take longer, so they also need extra time because of those accommodations. For example, a person who needs a scribe automatically gets 50% more time because it just takes longer to take the test with a scribe.

If you need a scribe or have profound dyslexia use the accommodations! Nobody is taking them away in this scenario.

. In this scenario, they will be further penalized for being disabled.

If you cannot read I’m not sure you should be taking the SAT anyway. Those are serious accommodations needed for college and an SAT score would be the least of my worries. If you are needing to show you are college capable a 1300 is sufficient—you will get into a college. Does it really need to be a top 25?

. I am done with you.

[Anonymous]

As an employer I want to know that it takes you twice as long to get something done before I hire you. If you have other talents that make up for that, great. But I want the information needed to decide if the tradeoff makes sense for my firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want employees who can do the job in the alotted time. I want to know who cant before I hire them.

That's funny - I want people who can do it the best as long as it doesn't impact the company negatively. If you do a great job and have to stay till 7 when everyone else leaves at 6 - give me a whole team like that

Won’t this lead to burnout? And day after day of grind lead to mistakes in the end.

+1 and what about team projects that are codependent? Does rest of team then wait?

My son usually let everybody else prepare the project and he presented since most kids were afraid to talk in public. They would seek him out in projects because he was do use to doing everything orally. Also EQ .. very high.

Not at work - we call that the lazy ass moocher

Maybe teach your kids not to be afraid to talk in public.

At our work we call them bosses.

[Anonymous]

I didn't read all 17 pages, but I hope someone already said this: the entire test should just be untimed for everyone. Well, the proctors will want to go home at some point, so make it like 12 hours or something ridiculously long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't read all 17 pages, but I hope someone already said this: the entire test should just be untimed for everyone. Well, the proctors will want to go home at some point, so make it like 12 hours or something ridiculously long.

I and a DP did on page 11. Simplest and fairest solution.

[Anonymous]

I know there is a mom on DCUM who crows how her ds got a 36 on the ACT with extra time and would have only gotten a 33 if timed like the rest of us.

I have a problem with that. Am I the only one? I think it’s the story that makes me think everyone might benefit from extra time and the current protocol is not fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't read all 17 pages, but I hope someone already said this: the entire test should just be untimed for everyone. Well, the proctors will want to go home at some point, so make it like 12 hours or something ridiculously long.

and kids can't leave until everybody is done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know there is a mom on DCUM who crows how her ds got a 36 on the ACT with extra time and would have only gotten a 33 if timed like the rest of us.

I have a problem with that. Am I the only one? I think it’s the story that makes me think everyone might benefit from extra time and the current protocol is not fair.

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

She is a liar.

[Anonymous]

If speed shouldn’t be a factor why does ACT make it a huge factor for normal kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't read all 17 pages, but I hope someone already said this: the entire test should just be untimed for everyone. Well, the proctors will want to go home at some point, so make it like 12 hours or something ridiculously long.

and kids can't leave until everybody is done.

Most kids with fake ADHD diagnoses get time and half. Time and half for all works well. I have no doubt in the next few years this will happen. If it’s a speed test it’s a speed test. If not give more time to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't read all 17 pages, but I hope someone already said this: the entire test should just be untimed for everyone. Well, the proctors will want to go home at some point, so make it like 12 hours or something ridiculously long.

and kids can't leave until everybody is done.

Most kids with fake ADHD diagnoses get time and half. Time and half for all works well. I have no doubt in the next few years this will happen. If it’s a speed test it’s a speed test. If not give more time to all.

It's not a speed test. Sure give everybody more time.. and pay for it in increased cost.

It will cost a lot of money with no extra benefit, except sooth the fears of strivers.

I've never heard of a business model that does that... more money no benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If speed shouldn’t be a factor why does ACT make it a huge factor for normal kids?

Exactly. Because it's more difficult/more expensive to write a test that distinguishes top students in other ways.

As long as ACT and SAT are being used as some sort of high school graduation benchmark in some states, perhaps they can't write a test that's any harder than Common Core. Literally the bottom line for these companies focuses on the middle of the pack. Distinguishing among top students doesn't pay nearly as well as state contracts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If speed shouldn’t be a factor why does ACT make it a huge factor for normal kids?

Exactly. Because it's more difficult/more expensive to write a test that distinguishes top students in other ways.

As long as ACT and SAT are being used as some sort of high school graduation benchmark in some states, perhaps they can't write a test that's any harder than Common Core. Literally the bottom line for these companies focuses on the middle of the pack. Distinguishing among top students doesn't pay nearly as well as state contracts.

Plus, each company probably thinks their test will be viewed more favorably by state education administrators if they can show gains among certain demographic groups.

[Anonymous]

For those who say ACT is not a speed test:
https://blog.prepscholar.com/act-vs-sat