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

[Anonymous]

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.

An IEP is not on a kids record. Colleges only know about it if the students discloses it.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Yes, they have been gaming the system. Read the Complaint/Indictment!

[Anonymous]

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.

Because speed, for example, isn't necessarily an indicator that you can't do well in college. You will need to work harder if you have a disability to master the content, but you should not be deprived of the opportunity because of a discriminatory bar to entry.

I'm sure everyone would do better on the SAT if they had more time. I know I left some questions blank -- I ran out of time. I studied some time management techniques for the test, but it's just difficult to manage time. So why should someone else be allowed unlimited time if they are bad at time management? And why unlimited time and not just an additional 10 minutes or 20 minutes? Is there a scale for how much extra time you get based on your need? Or does everyone get unlimited?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

I agree with you, especially when it comes to "processing speed." Plenty of parents will argue that their kid needs accommodations due to slower processing speed ... when in fact, processing speed is one thing the SAT is SUPPOSED to measure.

[Anonymous]

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.

+2

Processing speed is a significant part of the intelligence profile. If you have low processing speed and a FSIQ of 115 that’s still your IQ. Your IQ is average. You cannot just take that index away.

So with the ACT I see kids who are indeed average getting higher scores because of extra time. It doesn’t really make sense. What about Johnny who has slow processing speed but not low enough to get accommodations? I’m sorry. That’s just not fair.

[Anonymous]

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.

Because speed, for example, isn't necessarily an indicator that you can't do well in college. You will need to work harder if you have a disability to master the content, but you should not be deprived of the opportunity because of a discriminatory bar to entry.

I'm sure everyone would do better on the SAT if they had more time. I know I left some questions blank -- I ran out of time. I studied some time management techniques for the test, but it's just difficult to manage time. So why should someone else be allowed unlimited time if they are bad at time management? And why unlimited time and not just an additional 10 minutes or 20 minutes? Is there a scale for how much extra time you get based on your need? Or does everyone get unlimited?

The options are 1.5x, 2x and extended testing over several days.

What you get depends on the severity of your disability and is supposed to only reflect WHAT YOU ARE USING EVERY DAY IN HIGH SCHOOL.

No one is getting this for poor time management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read for yourself and decide

https://slate.com/technology/2006/05/taking-the-sat-untimed.html

The data showing additional time is interesting -- but the rest of the article is woefully outdated, dating from 2006!!!

It would be even worst today - more parents are aware on how to game the system

[Anonymous]

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.

No, I wrote that a physical disability should be accommodated, like needing to wear glasses.

It's the ADD example that I'm focusing on (no pun intended). Some people take longer than others; some do math better than others; some write better than others. These should all be reflected in the test results, and they are _except_ the "some people take longer time" -- they get accomodations.

I'm not great at math -- should I be allowed to use a calculator while the others are not? Hardly seems fair.

[Anonymous]

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.

Sure it's gaming the system. It's obscuring your child's actual weaknesses. If he really has that many strengths, he should be able to cope with his weaknesses. Find a college that does not rely so heavily on standardized tests.

[Anonymous]

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.

While, it's a bit of a convoluted way to explain, typical *may* not be able to understand high level physics, math, literature analysis, creative writing, etc. no matter how much time or accommodation they are given. Exceptionally bright kids (gifted kids) with learning disabilities, may be able to master these topics at a high level with accommodations. Your ability to reason past a certain level is not "fixed" we can raise the ceiling with rigorous, enriching experiences and normal development, but not in a day with extra time on a test.

[Anonymous]

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.

+2

Processing speed is a significant part of the intelligence profile. If you have low processing speed and a FSIQ of 115 that’s still your IQ. Your IQ is average. You cannot just take that index away.

So with the ACT I see kids who are indeed average getting higher scores because of extra time. It doesn’t really make sense. What about Johnny who has slow processing speed but not low enough to get accommodations? I’m sorry. That’s just not fair.

Low processing speed is not enough to get accommodations. For extended time the College Board requires far more data and evidence. What to Include
Include a detailed description of the disability and an explanation of how it affects test taking under timed conditions, including the frequency, duration, and intensity of the student’s symptoms. For example, requests for students with Tourette’s should provide a detailed description of their tics. For students with seizure disorders, a detailed description of their seizures and medication is appropriate.

Also include these forms of documentation as appropriate:

Educational history, including use of extended time
Scores from timed and untimed academic tests (examples listed below)
Comparisons of student’s performance under timed and untimed conditions
Occupational therapy evaluation
Teacher Survey Form (.pdf/240KB)
Students with Learning Disorders or ADHD
When requesting testing accommodations for students with learning disorders or ADHD, include scores from both timed and extended time or untimed tests. The following tests are commonly used to measure a student's academic skills in timed settings (the edition current at time of testing should be used):

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
Nelson-Denny Reading Test
Test of Written Language
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement
Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults
When these tests are administered under standardized conditions, and when the results are interpreted within the context of other diagnostic information, they provide useful information about testing accommodations. A low processing speed in itself, however, does not usually indicate the need for testing accommodations. In this instance, documentation should show how the low processing speed affects the student’s overall academic abilities under timed conditions.

See Learning Disorders or ADHD for more documentation guidelines. See Common Diagnostic Tests for an expanded list of tests that measure a student’s academic skills in extended time conditions.

What to Include

Include a detailed description of the disability and an explanation of how it affects test taking under timed conditions, including the frequency, duration, and intensity of the student’s symptoms. For example, requests for students with Tourette’s should provide a detailed description of their tics. For students with seizure disorders, a detailed description of their seizures and medication is appropriate.

Also include these forms of documentation as appropriate:

Educational history, including use of extended time
Scores from timed and untimed academic tests (examples listed below)
Comparisons of student’s performance under timed and untimed conditions
Occupational therapy evaluation
Teacher Survey Form (.pdf/240KB)
Students with Learning Disorders or ADHD

When requesting testing accommodations for students with learning disorders or ADHD, include scores from both timed and extended time or untimed tests. The following tests are commonly used to measure a student's academic skills in timed settings (the edition current at the time of testing should be used):

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
Nelson-Denny Reading Test
Test of Written Language
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement
Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults

When these tests are administered under standardized conditions, and when the results are interpreted within the context of other diagnostic information, they provide useful information about testing accommodations. A low processing speed in itself, however, does not usually indicate the need for testing accommodations. In this instance, documentation should show how the low processing speed affects the student’s overall academic abilities under timed conditions.

See Learning Disorders or ADHD for more documentation guidelines. See Common Diagnostic Tests for an expanded list of tests that measure a student’s academic skills in extended time conditions.

[Anonymous]

The above is from the College Board website regarding extra time.

They have similar pages with requirements for other disabilities and other requested accommodations.

https://accommodations.collegeboard.org/documentation-guidelines/extended-time

[Anonymous]

My 2 cents -- my child has a fine motor delay among other issues, and we've specifically asked for him NOT to get extra testing time in his IEP because we think he should learn to compensate, and we don't want him to think of himself as disabled or not having to work hard. He's still very young, but I think it's good for him to realize his weaknesses and learn to compensate, because the real world will not accomodate him.