Wall Street Journal on rampant growth in percentage of college students with “disabilities”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

No one is talking about average kids. The debate topic is high performing students. Both high performing students with and WITHOUT disabilities score higher when given extra time. No one is talking about the kids who without any accommodations score 1000 on the SAT or an ACT score of 20. Students who are scoring in the 80th or 90th percentile rank are panicking because that's not good enough for top colleges. If you can score better than 90% of the population without any accommodations, is it fair to get extra time to score in the 98th percentile rank? You just aren't that disabled to begin with if are doing better than 9 out if 10 students. Affluent parents realize this and have increasingly shopped around for sympathetic psychologists. If a psychologist who has a business privately testing has a reputation of not recommending extra time and being conservative with a diagnosis, they aren't going to stay in business.

This is the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

For the record, my kids are 3 and 1 and I have no idea about whether they are disabled or not or average or not. I was on the right side of the 99% on standardized test scores, and my wife hovered between the 98-99% (no accommodations of course) so let's stop with weird ad hominem insinuations and the even more bizarre "disabled genius" triumphalism.

I disagree with your assertion that a 50% kid would not see a significant improvement in test scores without extra time. I know many people who were not able to finish every section of the SAT and lost points as a result.

If that is the case, why are all the "disabled genius" parents so infuriated by the concept that we should simply give everyone a calculator and some more time and make the test more intellectually challenging. That would let us all prove what's really going on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

We have cut-offs for all things. Maybe all of us would like that great parking space at the front of the store, but we don't all qualify for a handicap placard. I might have some days where I am really sore, or sick, or could otherwise use it. Maybe I'm just generally out of shape, or depressed, or have low iron, and have long (even life-long) periods of it being challenging making it to the store from the back of the parking lot. That doesn't mean I rise to the level of disabled. I don't have it as easy as the in shape, or mentally healthy, or person with perfect iron. I don't have it as bad as the person who's a paraplegic. We aren't all equal, and when we set up systems we try to make it as reasonable as possible for everyone.

And yes, there are wealthy people who can get their doctors to sign off on a handicap placard that they might be borderline for. I don't think it's reasonable to do away with all handicap spaces just because there are some people gaming the system.

Right, but losing parking spaces near the store is not a material burden for the non-disabled. If anything, it's beneficial because they get more exercise walking to the store.

Losing a spot at a top college to someone that you would be able to beat on a standardized test if you BOTH got a calculator and extra time is a material burden. And of course, it's not surprising that the wealthy and well connected are at that forefront of figuring out how to make sure their kid benefits and the expense of others.

Parking spot =/= curved test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

For the record, my kids are 3 and 1 and I have no idea about whether they are disabled or not or average or not. I was on the right side of the 99% on standardized test scores, and my wife hovered between the 98-99% (no accommodations of course) so let's stop with weird ad hominem insinuations and the even more bizarre "disabled genius" triumphalism.

I disagree with your assertion that a 50% kid would not see a significant improvement in test scores without extra time. I know many people who were not able to finish every section of the SAT and lost points as a result.

If that is the case, why are all the "disabled genius" parents so infuriated by the concept that we should simply give everyone a calculator and some more time and make the test more intellectually challenging. That would let us all prove what's really going on here.

I agree with you 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

For the record, my kids are 3 and 1 and I have no idea about whether they are disabled or not or average or not. I was on the right side of the 99% on standardized test scores, and my wife hovered between the 98-99% (no accommodations of course) so let's stop with weird ad hominem insinuations and the even more bizarre "disabled genius" triumphalism.

I disagree with your assertion that a 50% kid would not see a significant improvement in test scores without extra time. I know many people who were not able to finish every section of the SAT and lost points as a result.

If that is the case, why are all the "disabled genius" parents so infuriated by the concept that we should simply give everyone a calculator and some more time and make the test more intellectually challenging. That would let us all prove what's really going on here.

But you're wrong. I don't think it's the "disabled genius parents" who are opposed to giving everyone unlimited time. I have a kid with accommodations and I totally support unlimited time for everyone. SOL's are technically untimed and I think it's great, because it really tests for knowledge. I've followed this thread from the very beginning, and it sounds like it's a lot of the parents with kids without accommodations who are opposed to unlimited time because they're arguing that doing things fast should be measured and that's why it's unfair for kids to get additional time.

And your kids are 1 and 3. So if it turns out that your kids qualify for additional time, do you think you won't have your kids take advantage of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

No one is talking about average kids. The debate topic is high performing students. Both high performing students with and WITHOUT disabilities score higher when given extra time. No one is talking about the kids who without any accommodations score 1000 on the SAT or an ACT score of 20. Students who are scoring in the 80th or 90th percentile rank are panicking because that's not good enough for top colleges. If you can score better than 90% of the population without any accommodations, is it fair to get extra time to score in the 98th percentile rank? You just aren't that disabled to begin with if are doing better than 9 out if 10 students. Affluent parents realize this and have increasingly shopped around for sympathetic psychologists. If a psychologist who has a business privately testing has a reputation of not recommending extra time and being conservative with a diagnosis, they aren't going to stay in business.

How do you know this? I know of no psychologists like this at all. I am the parent of the kid who scored high on the ACT and the psychologist we worked with is highly recommend and respected among pediatricians and educators alike. I really think parents like to think that many of these diagnoses are all bogus, but the truth is, probably 99% are legit. Now, if we have a legitimate diagnosis (which we do), why is it wrong for my son to get the extra time and truly demonstrate his giftedness? Is it because your gifted kid is now on a level playing field with my gifted kid, whereas before he was able to "smoke" him because he doesn't have the ADHD disability? That's what leveling the playing field is all about. My kid is just as gifted as your kid, except he has condition that can prevent him from demonstrating that under testing conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

No one is talking about average kids. The debate topic is high performing students. Both high performing students with and WITHOUT disabilities score higher when given extra time. No one is talking about the kids who without any accommodations score 1000 on the SAT or an ACT score of 20. Students who are scoring in the 80th or 90th percentile rank are panicking because that's not good enough for top colleges. If you can score better than 90% of the population without any accommodations, is it fair to get extra time to score in the 98th percentile rank? You just aren't that disabled to begin with if are doing better than 9 out if 10 students. Affluent parents realize this and have increasingly shopped around for sympathetic psychologists. If a psychologist who has a business privately testing has a reputation of not recommending extra time and being conservative with a diagnosis, they aren't going to stay in business.

I was a high performing student. Extra time would have bored me stiff. I got a perfect score on the ACT without extra time. I did not get a perfect score on the SAT, and while I was close, it wasn't lack of time that prevented it. I just wasn't smart enough.

I know it's hard for many of us to think that about our children. But honestly. If you have a high performing student who does not have a learning disability, they not only don't need extra time, they'd probably hate it. I have never taken a standardized test I didn't finish "early" and score extremely well on. Including the LSAT and GRE. Did so many of you really feel a time crunch?

I could understand people arguing that perfectly average children might benefit (a small amount) with extra time. But here's the thing. My dyslexic child doesn't just improve a bit with extra time. He goes from essentially failing to doing extremely well, because he's a bright kid. An average kid with dyslexia might go from essentially failing to doing around average. That's the point of accommodations, to allow the abilities of the children to show through.

Is it fair for children without disabilities to score in the 98th percentile? If your answer is yes, then your answer also needs to be yes that it is fair for children with disabilities to score in the 98th percentile.

Culturally, we're not willing to write these kids off as dumb anymore. Sorry that pains you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

No one is talking about average kids. The debate topic is high performing students. Both high performing students with and WITHOUT disabilities score higher when given extra time. No one is talking about the kids who without any accommodations score 1000 on the SAT or an ACT score of 20. Students who are scoring in the 80th or 90th percentile rank are panicking because that's not good enough for top colleges. If you can score better than 90% of the population without any accommodations, is it fair to get extra time to score in the 98th percentile rank? You just aren't that disabled to begin with if are doing better than 9 out if 10 students. Affluent parents realize this and have increasingly shopped around for sympathetic psychologists. If a psychologist who has a business privately testing has a reputation of not recommending extra time and being conservative with a diagnosis, they aren't going to stay in business.

How do you know this? I know of no psychologists like this at all. I am the parent of the kid who scored high on the ACT and the psychologist we worked with is highly recommend and respected among pediatricians and educators alike. I really think parents like to think that many of these diagnoses are all bogus, but the truth is, probably 99% are legit. Now, if we have a legitimate diagnosis (which we do), why is it wrong for my son to get the extra time and truly demonstrate his giftedness? Is it because your gifted kid is now on a level playing field with my gifted kid, whereas before he was able to "smoke" him because he doesn't have the ADHD disability? That's what leveling the playing field is all about. My kid is just as gifted as your kid, except he has condition that can prevent him from demonstrating that under testing conditions.

Thanks. I think we actually have come to part of the crux of the disagreement.

Your kid is not actually just as gifted as that other kid.

Your kid has significant strengths but also significant weaknesses. The other kid has fewer weaknesses.

There is also a third child that has strengths that are not as strong as your child but also fewer weaknesses. Your child is probably equivalent to that child.

Then there is a fourth child that has a ton of weaknesses all around. Your child is more gifted than that child.

We are all for you trying to help your kid so he doesn't slip through the cracks and doesn't get lumped in with the fourth child (not that there is anything wrong with the fourth child, there is inherently a bell curve and it just is what it is) because your child and the fourth child do not have different needs.

But your child is fundamentally not the most gifted of the lot.

There is literally a written diagnosis explaining to you that this is the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What concerns me from a related article is the statement that wealthier students are more likely to receive accommodations than poor students.

What happens when these kids graduate college? Is an employer going to give a person who takes twice as long to do something the same salary as someone who meets deadlines?

I’d be concerned about this. Of course there are plenty of teens with legitimate disabilities but there is also a subsection that are just gaming the system to their advantage. Won’t be able to do that once they have a real job though, will they?

The very small percentage of children who are "gaming" the system are probably from wealthy families (right? since that's how they're gaming the system?) and are likely to end up working for/with their families and they'll be just fine. I'm sure they're touched you're concerned, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

No one is talking about average kids. The debate topic is high performing students. Both high performing students with and WITHOUT disabilities score higher when given extra time. No one is talking about the kids who without any accommodations score 1000 on the SAT or an ACT score of 20. Students who are scoring in the 80th or 90th percentile rank are panicking because that's not good enough for top colleges. If you can score better than 90% of the population without any accommodations, is it fair to get extra time to score in the 98th percentile rank? You just aren't that disabled to begin with if are doing better than 9 out if 10 students. Affluent parents realize this and have increasingly shopped around for sympathetic psychologists. If a psychologist who has a business privately testing has a reputation of not recommending extra time and being conservative with a diagnosis, they aren't going to stay in business.

This is the point.

Smart kids can't be disabled?

Huh. Can athletic kids be disabled?

I'm learning all sorts of new things today!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

No one is talking about average kids. The debate topic is high performing students. Both high performing students with and WITHOUT disabilities score higher when given extra time. No one is talking about the kids who without any accommodations score 1000 on the SAT or an ACT score of 20. Students who are scoring in the 80th or 90th percentile rank are panicking because that's not good enough for top colleges. If you can score better than 90% of the population without any accommodations, is it fair to get extra time to score in the 98th percentile rank? You just aren't that disabled to begin with if are doing better than 9 out if 10 students. Affluent parents realize this and have increasingly shopped around for sympathetic psychologists. If a psychologist who has a business privately testing has a reputation of not recommending extra time and being conservative with a diagnosis, they aren't going to stay in business.

How do you know this? I know of no psychologists like this at all. I am the parent of the kid who scored high on the ACT and the psychologist we worked with is highly recommend and respected among pediatricians and educators alike. I really think parents like to think that many of these diagnoses are all bogus, but the truth is, probably 99% are legit. Now, if we have a legitimate diagnosis (which we do), why is it wrong for my son to get the extra time and truly demonstrate his giftedness? Is it because your gifted kid is now on a level playing field with my gifted kid, whereas before he was able to "smoke" him because he doesn't have the ADHD disability? That's what leveling the playing field is all about. My kid is just as gifted as your kid, except he has condition that can prevent him from demonstrating that under testing conditions.

Your child did not "truly demonstrate his giftedness" by getting a 36 on the ACT with extra time. The ACT is designed to measure processing speed and accuracy; your son got excused from that part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

No one is talking about average kids. The debate topic is high performing students. Both high performing students with and WITHOUT disabilities score higher when given extra time. No one is talking about the kids who without any accommodations score 1000 on the SAT or an ACT score of 20. Students who are scoring in the 80th or 90th percentile rank are panicking because that's not good enough for top colleges. If you can score better than 90% of the population without any accommodations, is it fair to get extra time to score in the 98th percentile rank? You just aren't that disabled to begin with if are doing better than 9 out if 10 students. Affluent parents realize this and have increasingly shopped around for sympathetic psychologists. If a psychologist who has a business privately testing has a reputation of not recommending extra time and being conservative with a diagnosis, they aren't going to stay in business.

I was a high performing student. Extra time would have bored me stiff. I got a perfect score on the ACT without extra time. I did not get a perfect score on the SAT, and while I was close, it wasn't lack of time that prevented it. I just wasn't smart enough.

I know it's hard for many of us to think that about our children. But honestly. If you have a high performing student who does not have a learning disability, they not only don't need extra time, they'd probably hate it. I have never taken a standardized test I didn't finish "early" and score extremely well on. Including the LSAT and GRE. Did so many of you really feel a time crunch?

I could understand people arguing that perfectly average children might benefit (a small amount) with extra time. But here's the thing. My dyslexic child doesn't just improve a bit with extra time. He goes from essentially failing to doing extremely well, because he's a bright kid. An average kid with dyslexia might go from essentially failing to doing around average. That's the point of accommodations, to allow the abilities of the children to show through.

Is it fair for children without disabilities to score in the 98th percentile? If your answer is yes, then your answer also needs to be yes that it is fair for children with disabilities to score in the 98th percentile.

Culturally, we're not willing to write these kids off as dumb anymore. Sorry that pains you.

As long as you ask, I got a 1600 on my PSAT but only a 1550 on the SAT because I ran out of time on one of the math sections.

With five extra minutes, I am pretty sure I would have gotten a perfect score or maybe a point or two off.

Virtually everyone I know, if offered more time on the SAT, would have taken it and would have seen their scores rise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

For the record, my kids are 3 and 1 and I have no idea about whether they are disabled or not or average or not. I was on the right side of the 99% on standardized test scores, and my wife hovered between the 98-99% (no accommodations of course) so let's stop with weird ad hominem insinuations and the even more bizarre "disabled genius" triumphalism.

I disagree with your assertion that a 50% kid would not see a significant improvement in test scores without extra time. I know many people who were not able to finish every section of the SAT and lost points as a result.

If that is the case, why are all the "disabled genius" parents so infuriated by the concept that we should simply give everyone a calculator and some more time and make the test more intellectually challenging. That would let us all prove what's really going on here.

While we're at it, I want to be able to park in handicap spots, I want food stamps, I should also get social security disability payments. I suffer from depression and it's entirely unfair that some people are scamming the system and getting disability when I'm not! I could sure use that extra money. And not having to walk into a store from far away when it's raining? No one wants to get wet, after all. And it kind of sucks I have to pay for my groceries out of my own money when other people get them for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

We have cut-offs for all things. Maybe all of us would like that great parking space at the front of the store, but we don't all qualify for a handicap placard. I might have some days where I am really sore, or sick, or could otherwise use it. Maybe I'm just generally out of shape, or depressed, or have low iron, and have long (even life-long) periods of it being challenging making it to the store from the back of the parking lot. That doesn't mean I rise to the level of disabled. I don't have it as easy as the in shape, or mentally healthy, or person with perfect iron. I don't have it as bad as the person who's a paraplegic. We aren't all equal, and when we set up systems we try to make it as reasonable as possible for everyone.

And yes, there are wealthy people who can get their doctors to sign off on a handicap placard that they might be borderline for. I don't think it's reasonable to do away with all handicap spaces just because there are some people gaming the system.

Right, but losing parking spaces near the store is not a material burden for the non-disabled. If anything, it's beneficial because they get more exercise walking to the store.

Losing a spot at a top college to someone that you would be able to beat on a standardized test if you BOTH got a calculator and extra time is a material burden. And of course, it's not surprising that the wealthy and well connected are at that forefront of figuring out how to make sure their kid benefits and the expense of others.

Parking spot =/= curved test.

It takes me longer to walk to the store. When it's raining I get wet. And I'm sick today, and not feeling up to walking into the store even though I'd really like some soup. I'm feeling persecuted. It's totally unfair that other people get those spots and I don't. They probably don't even need them! If everyone had access to those spots, it would benefit everyone!

News flash: you aren't losing a spot in a top college. Not to a kid with a disability. Not to a kid who's an under represented minority. Not to any other manufactured bogeyman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We can go back and forth about individual cases but here is how I think about it on a systemic level. Let's take the example of a kid that scores in the 95 percentile in a bunch of metrics but the 20 percentile in one and thus qualifies as disabled.

There are some people who seem to think that this kid is really a 95 percentile kid with just some sort of issue preventing his ability from being truly recognized. That's not really accurate. Their kid is a kid with many strengths but also clear weaknesses.

it is unfair for the weaknesses to hamper the kid to such an extent that he is not able to display his strengths. So if he was getting a 30 percentile score on the test I would take that as evidence that the test did not truly reflect his ability.

Giving accommodations so that the kid ends up with a 95 percentile score is also not fair to all the other kids who also are hard working, who also want to go to good colleges, who also have their own strengths and weaknesses, because a 95 percentile score is ALSO not actually reflective of his abilities. Because his abilities are in fact limited, just like everyone else's, it's just they are limited in a way that we can better measure and try to address with novel learning techniques now that we know more about the human brain. But they still exist. The reality is this is probably a 70 percentile kid when all these factors are considered.

And then to get on the internet and brag about how your "gifted" kid smoked all the other kids is really both myopic and cruel. And if done on a mass scale will limit (and has limited) the enthusiasm of parents whose kids don't get extra time or a calculator but sure as shit could get higher scores with it to put up with the system you are trying to create.

Here is what you do not understand. An average kid without a documented disability who gets extra time will not significantly improve his or her score. That is because the average kid does not have the intellectual capacity to answer the questions correctly. People keep saying to give extra time across the board, but the truth is that you will be disappointed with your average kid's results. A kid with a documented disability like dyslexia or ADHD would improve their score significantly with the extra time because that is the biggest factor holding them back. Unlike your average, some of these kids are brilliant and are able to demonstrate that with the extended time. If you really want to improve your average kid's score, why don't you just get him some tutoring or have him do more practice tests on his own.

No one is talking about average kids. The debate topic is high performing students. Both high performing students with and WITHOUT disabilities score higher when given extra time. No one is talking about the kids who without any accommodations score 1000 on the SAT or an ACT score of 20. Students who are scoring in the 80th or 90th percentile rank are panicking because that's not good enough for top colleges. If you can score better than 90% of the population without any accommodations, is it fair to get extra time to score in the 98th percentile rank? You just aren't that disabled to begin with if are doing better than 9 out if 10 students. Affluent parents realize this and have increasingly shopped around for sympathetic psychologists. If a psychologist who has a business privately testing has a reputation of not recommending extra time and being conservative with a diagnosis, they aren't going to stay in business.

How do you know this? I know of no psychologists like this at all. I am the parent of the kid who scored high on the ACT and the psychologist we worked with is highly recommend and respected among pediatricians and educators alike. I really think parents like to think that many of these diagnoses are all bogus, but the truth is, probably 99% are legit. Now, if we have a legitimate diagnosis (which we do), why is it wrong for my son to get the extra time and truly demonstrate his giftedness? Is it because your gifted kid is now on a level playing field with my gifted kid, whereas before he was able to "smoke" him because he doesn't have the ADHD disability? That's what leveling the playing field is all about. My kid is just as gifted as your kid, except he has condition that can prevent him from demonstrating that under testing conditions.

Your child did not "truly demonstrate his giftedness" by getting a 36 on the ACT with extra time. The ACT is designed to measure processing speed and accuracy; your son got excused from that part.

The issue I have is that what used to be considered an individuals “strengths and weaknesses” are now considered disabilities. Low processing speed and executive function problems? I’d bet good money that everyone in my family has problems with those.