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

[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.

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.

More context:

I feel strongly about this issue because I was a middle / upper-middle class kid with immigrant parents who did not have alumni status, donation money, sports or any other hook to an elite college. I did get into an elite college.

Straight A's and knocking the SAT out of the parent were the only way I was ever going to be able to pull that off.

I care about the fundamental integrity of the testing system so that as many whip-smart kids without connections or games can get into the best schools possible. I think that is the fairest system, and the best for them, and the best for society.

There are an extremely limited number of spots at these schools for kids without a "hook." It's terribly unfair in all sorts of ways. For many kids, an objective four hour test is the only way THEY are going to be able to level the playing field and now you are trying to take that away from them.

[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.

Because some people have a disability that impacts how they are able to take the test. Giving someone with no disability the same amount of time as someone with a disability, means that the person with a disability effectively has less time on the test material because they are spend much more time doing tasks ancillary to the actual test.

I don't know why everyone doesn't get a 4 function calculator, though, since I'm pretty sure someone with dyscalculia and someone without would use a calculator at about the same speed. Of course being someone who can easily calculate in my head, it wouldn't make much difference to me while making a huge difference to the person with dyscalculia. It would be the equivalent of magically giving a dyslexic person the ability to read at the same speed as a typical reader, thus leveling the playing field by erasing the time impact of the disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

More context:

I feel strongly about this issue because I was a middle / upper-middle class kid with immigrant parents who did not have alumni status, donation money, sports or any other hook to an elite college. I did get into an elite college.

Straight A's and knocking the SAT out of the parent were the only way I was ever going to be able to pull that off.

I care about the fundamental integrity of the testing system so that as many whip-smart kids without connections or games can get into the best schools possible. I think that is the fairest system, and the best for them, and the best for society.

There are an extremely limited number of spots at these schools for kids without a "hook." It's terribly unfair in all sorts of ways. For many kids, an objective four hour test is the only way THEY are going to be able to level the playing field and now you are trying to take that away from them.

Would you feel the same way if it took you two to four times as long to read every question and to fill in every bubble as it did other kids with your same general IQ level and knowledge base? Then you'd have way more than one question you didn't get to, but oh well, that's fair, right?

[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.

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.

If you can’t see the difference between someone using accommodations to get a 36 on the ACT rather than a 34, and a person who requires a handicapped sticker because they cannot physically handle a long walk to their destination, then I suppose there is no point in continuing this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

More context:

I feel strongly about this issue because I was a middle / upper-middle class kid with immigrant parents who did not have alumni status, donation money, sports or any other hook to an elite college. I did get into an elite college.

Straight A's and knocking the SAT out of the parent were the only way I was ever going to be able to pull that off.

I care about the fundamental integrity of the testing system so that as many whip-smart kids without connections or games can get into the best schools possible. I think that is the fairest system, and the best for them, and the best for society.

There are an extremely limited number of spots at these schools for kids without a "hook." It's terribly unfair in all sorts of ways. For many kids, an objective four hour test is the only way THEY are going to be able to level the playing field and now you are trying to take that away from them.

Would you feel the same way if it took you two to four times as long to read every question and to fill in every bubble as it did other kids with your same general IQ level and knowledge base? Then you'd have way more than one question you didn't get to, but oh well, that's fair, right?

And while we're comparing our life stories. I'm from a lower middle class background. I did well on the ACT and SAT without doing any test prep. That isn't something kids like me did. I don't recall ever taking the full amount of time, which is probably what brought my math score down. You see I have ADHD and just whiz through things and don't bother to go back because that's boring. I expect with a perfect verbal score and an OK math score on the SAT, a 3.9 GPA, NMSF, and coming from a $35k/yr background I probably could have gotten into a good college if I'd applied. But compensating for ADHD means I also had depression and anxiety so I never actually applied in spite of receiving mailers from every college under the sun. That's the reality of living with one of these disabilities and not having support. I did end up going to college and got my degree in electrical engineering and math and have a perfectly good career. It's hard to unlearn the habit of knowing how much of a failure you are even when other people think you're great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

More context:

I feel strongly about this issue because I was a middle / upper-middle class kid with immigrant parents who did not have alumni status, donation money, sports or any other hook to an elite college. I did get into an elite college.

Straight A's and knocking the SAT out of the parent were the only way I was ever going to be able to pull that off.

I care about the fundamental integrity of the testing system so that as many whip-smart kids without connections or games can get into the best schools possible. I think that is the fairest system, and the best for them, and the best for society.

There are an extremely limited number of spots at these schools for kids without a "hook." It's terribly unfair in all sorts of ways. For many kids, an objective four hour test is the only way THEY are going to be able to level the playing field and now you are trying to take that away from them.

Would you feel the same way if it took you two to four times as long to read every question and to fill in every bubble as it did other kids with your same general IQ level and knowledge base? Then you'd have way more than one question you didn't get to, but oh well, that's fair, right?

Asked and answered. We need to make sure the testing system properly accounts for their strengths AND their weaknesses.

Part of the purpose of the reading comprehension section of the SAT is literally to test reading comprehension. If we decide to exempt some (but not all) children who literally have trouble comprehending reading, we are distorting at least one of the purposes of the test, which is to test for reading comprehension.

I am all for discussing ways to make sure the test fairly measures what we are trying to measure. Maybe we should also have submit an IQ test. Or an untimed writing sample done closed-book environment and demonstrating their general knowledge. Maybe those things should be in addition to or in lieu of the SAT.

I don't want a system where a high-IQ dsylexic kid gets a 700 on the SAT because of his dyslexia because that is not accurate or fair. I also do not want a system a high IQ dsylexid kid gets 1600 because that is not accurate and fair.

It is fundamentally not fair to make one kid suffer by losing points due to that kid's failure to comprehend a reading question while at the same time designing a scheme where another kid does not lose points despite the fact that he has even more trouble comprehending reading.

Anyways, I'm all for discussing options but the current system is broken. This matters because EVERYONE has an interest in making the system as fair as it can be for EVERYONE. Part of this is making sure we are accurately testing students on the things that we trying to test them for.

I've said my piece, I'll hang up my mic now, I'm done.

[Anonymous]

Level the playing field - give a calculator to every kid and let the kids decide how long they want to take on the exams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is hysterical. Now my kid's ADHD is just a weakness. Well thank goodness ACT recognizes that it is a "weakness" that warrants extra time. He got the 36. He is gifted as far as many are concerned. I really don't care what your opinion is because it is tainted by extremely envy. Pathetic really that horrid people like you exist.

[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.

Agree - this is what the college board’s studies have shown - the distribution of scores after the flagging were removed did not follow a normal distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is hysterical. Now my kid's ADHD is just a weakness. Well thank goodness ACT recognizes that it is a "weakness" that warrants extra time. He got the 36. He is gifted as far as many are concerned. I really don't care what your opinion is because it is tainted by extremely envy. Pathetic really that horrid people like you exist.

There is no envy here. Just reality.
As far as being horrid, I feel the same way about you.
As they say, opinions are like a$$holes...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

More context:

I feel strongly about this issue because I was a middle / upper-middle class kid with immigrant parents who did not have alumni status, donation money, sports or any other hook to an elite college. I did get into an elite college.

Straight A's and knocking the SAT out of the parent were the only way I was ever going to be able to pull that off.

I care about the fundamental integrity of the testing system so that as many whip-smart kids without connections or games can get into the best schools possible. I think that is the fairest system, and the best for them, and the best for society.

There are an extremely limited number of spots at these schools for kids without a "hook." It's terribly unfair in all sorts of ways. For many kids, an objective four hour test is the only way THEY are going to be able to level the playing field and now you are trying to take that away from them.

Would you feel the same way if it took you two to four times as long to read every question and to fill in every bubble as it did other kids with your same general IQ level and knowledge base? Then you'd have way more than one question you didn't get to, but oh well, that's fair, right?

Asked and answered. We need to make sure the testing system properly accounts for their strengths AND their weaknesses.

Part of the purpose of the reading comprehension section of the SAT is literally to test reading comprehension. If we decide to exempt some (but not all) children who literally have trouble comprehending reading, we are distorting at least one of the purposes of the test, which is to test for reading comprehension.

I am all for discussing ways to make sure the test fairly measures what we are trying to measure. Maybe we should also have submit an IQ test. Or an untimed writing sample done closed-book environment and demonstrating their general knowledge. Maybe those things should be in addition to or in lieu of the SAT.

I don't want a system where a high-IQ dsylexic kid gets a 700 on the SAT because of his dyslexia because that is not accurate or fair. I also do not want a system a high IQ dsylexid kid gets 1600 because that is not accurate and fair.

It is fundamentally not fair to make one kid suffer by losing points due to that kid's failure to comprehend a reading question while at the same time designing a scheme where another kid does not lose points despite the fact that he has even more trouble comprehending reading.

Anyways, I'm all for discussing options but the current system is broken. This matters because EVERYONE has an interest in making the system as fair as it can be for EVERYONE. Part of this is making sure we are accurately testing students on the things that we trying to test them for.

I've said my piece, I'll hang up my mic now, I'm done.

In other words you have no clue what dyslexia is. It has nothing to do with reading comprehension. Dyslexia means that the parts of the brain that form a word memory and tie it to the word on the page aren't connected in the same way as in the majority of the population. Interestingly people with this type of brain seem to be better at some visio-spatial activities (that are not tested for obvs). It has no bearing on test taking other than taking longer to decode the words on the page, which has nothing to do with comprehension. They are also notoriously bad at spelling as in can't even get into the ballpark bad unless they've had structured language literacy instruction ... which isn't taught in schools. Penalizing someone for having dyslexia makes as much sense as penalizing someone for having bad eyesight and requiring the use of text enlargement. So far as I'm aware, none of these tests are designed to be tests of reading speed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is hysterical. Now my kid's ADHD is just a weakness. Well thank goodness ACT recognizes that it is a "weakness" that warrants extra time. He got the 36. He is gifted as far as many are concerned. I really don't care what your opinion is because it is tainted by extremely envy. Pathetic really that horrid people like you exist.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-adhd-overdiagnosed-and-overtreated-2017031611304

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

More context:

I feel strongly about this issue because I was a middle / upper-middle class kid with immigrant parents who did not have alumni status, donation money, sports or any other hook to an elite college. I did get into an elite college.

Straight A's and knocking the SAT out of the parent were the only way I was ever going to be able to pull that off.

I care about the fundamental integrity of the testing system so that as many whip-smart kids without connections or games can get into the best schools possible. I think that is the fairest system, and the best for them, and the best for society.

There are an extremely limited number of spots at these schools for kids without a "hook." It's terribly unfair in all sorts of ways. For many kids, an objective four hour test is the only way THEY are going to be able to level the playing field and now you are trying to take that away from them.

Would you feel the same way if it took you two to four times as long to read every question and to fill in every bubble as it did other kids with your same general IQ level and knowledge base? Then you'd have way more than one question you didn't get to, but oh well, that's fair, right?

Asked and answered. We need to make sure the testing system properly accounts for their strengths AND their weaknesses.

Part of the purpose of the reading comprehension section of the SAT is literally to test reading comprehension. If we decide to exempt some (but not all) children who literally have trouble comprehending reading, we are distorting at least one of the purposes of the test, which is to test for reading comprehension.

I am all for discussing ways to make sure the test fairly measures what we are trying to measure. Maybe we should also have submit an IQ test. Or an untimed writing sample done closed-book environment and demonstrating their general knowledge. Maybe those things should be in addition to or in lieu of the SAT.

I don't want a system where a high-IQ dsylexic kid gets a 700 on the SAT because of his dyslexia because that is not accurate or fair. I also do not want a system a high IQ dsylexid kid gets 1600 because that is not accurate and fair.

It is fundamentally not fair to make one kid suffer by losing points due to that kid's failure to comprehend a reading question while at the same time designing a scheme where another kid does not lose points despite the fact that he has even more trouble comprehending reading.

Anyways, I'm all for discussing options but the current system is broken. This matters because EVERYONE has an interest in making the system as fair as it can be for EVERYONE. Part of this is making sure we are accurately testing students on the things that we trying to test them for.

I've said my piece, I'll hang up my mic now, I'm done.

In other words you have no clue what dyslexia is. It has nothing to do with reading comprehension. Dyslexia means that the parts of the brain that form a word memory and tie it to the word on the page aren't connected in the same way as in the majority of the population. Interestingly people with this type of brain seem to be better at some visio-spatial activities (that are not tested for obvs). It has no bearing on test taking other than taking longer to decode the words on the page, which has nothing to do with comprehension. They are also notoriously bad at spelling as in can't even get into the ballpark bad unless they've had structured language literacy instruction ... which isn't taught in schools. Penalizing someone for having dyslexia makes as much sense as penalizing someone for having bad eyesight and requiring the use of text enlargement. So far as I'm aware, none of these tests are designed to be tests of reading speed.

So then let's make it untimed for everyone so everyone has the same level playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is hysterical. Now my kid's ADHD is just a weakness. Well thank goodness ACT recognizes that it is a "weakness" that warrants extra time. He got the 36. He is gifted as far as many are concerned. I really don't care what your opinion is because it is tainted by extremely envy. Pathetic really that horrid people like you exist.

There is no envy here. Just reality.
As far as being horrid, I feel the same way about you.
As they say, opinions are like a$$holes...

Well the reality is that my kid is gifted whether you want to recognize that or not. And who knows what your situation is that you would need to advocate denying warranted accommodations to kids -- gifted or not. Sounds to me like things are likely not going so well for your kid. Like I said...hire the tutor and take more practice tests. Have a wonderful day!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

More context:

I feel strongly about this issue because I was a middle / upper-middle class kid with immigrant parents who did not have alumni status, donation money, sports or any other hook to an elite college. I did get into an elite college.

Straight A's and knocking the SAT out of the parent were the only way I was ever going to be able to pull that off.

I care about the fundamental integrity of the testing system so that as many whip-smart kids without connections or games can get into the best schools possible. I think that is the fairest system, and the best for them, and the best for society.

There are an extremely limited number of spots at these schools for kids without a "hook." It's terribly unfair in all sorts of ways. For many kids, an objective four hour test is the only way THEY are going to be able to level the playing field and now you are trying to take that away from them.

Would you feel the same way if it took you two to four times as long to read every question and to fill in every bubble as it did other kids with your same general IQ level and knowledge base? Then you'd have way more than one question you didn't get to, but oh well, that's fair, right?

Asked and answered. We need to make sure the testing system properly accounts for their strengths AND their weaknesses.

Part of the purpose of the reading comprehension section of the SAT is literally to test reading comprehension. If we decide to exempt some (but not all) children who literally have trouble comprehending reading, we are distorting at least one of the purposes of the test, which is to test for reading comprehension.

I am all for discussing ways to make sure the test fairly measures what we are trying to measure. Maybe we should also have submit an IQ test. Or an untimed writing sample done closed-book environment and demonstrating their general knowledge. Maybe those things should be in addition to or in lieu of the SAT.

I don't want a system where a high-IQ dsylexic kid gets a 700 on the SAT because of his dyslexia because that is not accurate or fair. I also do not want a system a high IQ dsylexid kid gets 1600 because that is not accurate and fair.

It is fundamentally not fair to make one kid suffer by losing points due to that kid's failure to comprehend a reading question while at the same time designing a scheme where another kid does not lose points despite the fact that he has even more trouble comprehending reading.

Anyways, I'm all for discussing options but the current system is broken. This matters because EVERYONE has an interest in making the system as fair as it can be for EVERYONE. Part of this is making sure we are accurately testing students on the things that we trying to test them for.

I've said my piece, I'll hang up my mic now, I'm done.

Reading Comprehension is not the bit that a dyslexic person generally has trouble. Some people read with their eyes, some read with their fingers and some read with their ears. Why should we limit a test of reading comprehension only to those who read with one sense (sight)over another (hearing)?