Atlantic accommodation abuse article

[Anonymous]

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.

It’s timed because the company running it is a money making factory and they don’t care about your kid.

The whole industry should be audited.

The reason kids with disabilities get extra time is because it’s the law.

The parents of the kids with the disabilities specifically don't want everyone else to get adequate time.

Parent of a kid with disabilities here. I’m fine with untimed for all. How many of us have you actually asked?

[Anonymous]

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.

Nice try, but it’s not. Otherwise, we would offer everyone an opportunity to complete the SAT in 4-8 hours over 1-2 days. If the test is speed neutral, extra time would give minimal to no advantage to those with a normal processing speed.

[Anonymous]

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.

For so many situations, this is the answer. When I taught that's what I always did. I intended for the test to take about 75% of the class period. For most kids it did, and they finished early and did work. For some it took the whole time. And once in a while someone wouldn't finish, and they'd be welcome to come back and finish later.

This. Unlimited time isn't feasible. But structure the SAT to take 60 or 90 minutes by a neurotypical tester and give everyone 4 hours to complete it.

[Anonymous]

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?

DP.

(1) you didn’t address PP’s question as to why the test is timed at all

(2) processing speed is actually one of the primary measures of cognitive ability

DP. Processing speed is a measure of cognitive efficiency, not a measure of innate intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Teachers at top privates which have a lot of families who abuse the extra time (on top of the legit extra time kids) have figured out how to give everyone extra time. You write an exam that will take a typical kid 75% of the given time.

[Anonymous]

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.

If that's the case then all kids should get the extra time. Supposedly it's a test of knowledge not speed and if so the option of extra time should be open to any kid that wants it. The fact that many parents of kids that get extra time are opposed to that indicates it is really about competition after all since they know NT kids would ALSO do better if given more time on a timed test.

[Anonymous]

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?

DP.

(1) you didn’t address PP’s question as to why the test is timed at all

(2) processing speed is actually one of the primary measures of cognitive ability

DP. Processing speed is a measure of cognitive efficiency, not a measure of innate intelligence.

m

Are you under the impression that the SAT is intended to measure innate intelligence?

[Anonymous]

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.

It’s timed because the company running it is a money making factory and they don’t care about your kid.

The whole industry should be audited.

The reason kids with disabilities get extra time is because it’s the law.

The parents of the kids with the disabilities specifically don't want everyone else to get adequate time.

Parent of a kid with disabilities here. I’m fine with untimed for all. How many of us have you actually asked?

not PP but it's come up a fair amount on this board and usually there are parents of kids with extra time arguing it's not fair for the extra time to be available to all kids equally.

[Anonymous]

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?

That point is irrelevant. We're not talking about those professions. We're talking about a test that measures knowledge. You can have slow EF and be a great pathologist. Should a kid be denied accommodations on the SAT because he/she may not be qualified for a profession that requires a fast processing speed?

[Anonymous]

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.

Nice try, but it’s not. Otherwise, we would offer everyone an opportunity to complete the SAT in 4-8 hours over 1-2 days. If the test is speed neutral, extra time would give minimal to no advantage to those with a normal processing speed.

It *does* give minimal to no advantage to those with normal processing speed, which is why they don’t bother creating a logistical nightmare to give everyone unlimited or even 8 hours to take them.

Have you sat for a 6-8 hour test? My DC technically could get double time but only take +50% because who the hell wants a 7-hour English Lang & Comp exam. It’s exhausting. Only taking the AP exams because the school requires it to get the AP designation. Score isn’t likely to be over a 3 regardless.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

DP.

(1) you didn’t address PP’s question as to why the test is timed at all

(2) processing speed is actually one of the primary measures of cognitive ability

DP. Processing speed is a measure of cognitive efficiency, not a measure of innate intelligence.

m

Are you under the impression that the SAT is intended to measure innate intelligence?

No, but the person I was responding to seems to be.

[Anonymous]

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.

If that's the case then all kids should get the extra time. Supposedly it's a test of knowledge not speed and if so the option of extra time should be open to any kid that wants it. The fact that many parents of kids that get extra time are opposed to that indicates it is really about competition after all since they know NT kids would ALSO do better if given more time on a timed test.

I have a kid who has received accommodations and I'm not opposed to giving everyone more time. Why do you assume that parents like me are opposed to giving other kids more time? Where does that come from?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

That point is irrelevant. We're not talking about those professions. We're talking about a test that measures knowledge. You can have slow EF and be a great pathologist. Should a kid be denied accommodations on the SAT because he/she may not be qualified for a profession that requires a fast processing speed?

The SAT is not intended to measure knowledge, nor is it intended to measure intelligence.