WSJ article on more students especially the affluent get extra time on SAT

[Anonymous]

my DD, HFA and ADHD. She is fine for 1 hour. But, when they did the Neuropsych evaluation, they could see the fatigue killed her ability to think. To the point where, in the early sections she would score in the 99% percentile, but the later sections, the 40% percentile, leading to an overall FSIQ of 112. But, in another test, which was shorter duration, she measured at 138.

She has 50% extra time. Frankly, she would be happy with regular time but longer breaks. That option does not exist.

What it did was allowed her to get refocused while taking the SATs.

In in-class tests, she usually does not need extra time. The AP tests did require it.

Sometimes, the issues are real. As for the lack of extra time in the real world, 10 minute breaks to get up an walk around are usually acceptable, at least in my job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this sounds crazy, but I don't see how extra time helps. I was smart and affluent and always finished early. I'm a fast reader and extra time wouldn't have helped me.

It does not help. This is very well documented. People want to believe it would help so they can blame kids with LD's for their kids low scores.

It isn't well documented. Stop making stuff up

give your kid the test timed, then untimed... compare the score.. your child is not going to magically become a genius with a few extra minutes.

I tried it. The scores were indeed much higher untimed.

+1

My daughter did too. She timed herself all the time on ACT.

28-30 with 5min less each session (it stresses to practice this way to allow you "extra" time on the real test)
32-33 with standard time each session
34-36 with no time limit

It absolutely makes a difference for the ACT.

Interesting. Was the test with the no time limit the first test that she took or the last test?

[Anonymous]

If 1 in 3 in a public high school has accomodations, then the 2 without accomodations are at a disadvantage. Extra time helps in tests, quizzes that impact grades. So to the naysayers, you are just in denial about extra time not helping get higher score. Get rid of extra time or indicate on transcript/score or give everyone the same extra time. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this sounds crazy, but I don't see how extra time helps. I was smart and affluent and always finished early. I'm a fast reader and extra time wouldn't have helped me.

It does not help. This is very well documented. People want to believe it would help so they can blame kids with LD's for their kids low scores.

It isn't well documented. Stop making stuff up

give your kid the test timed, then untimed... compare the score.. your child is not going to magically become a genius with a few extra minutes.

I tried it. The scores were indeed much higher untimed.

+1

My daughter did too. She timed herself all the time on ACT.

28-30 with 5min less each session (it stresses to practice this way to allow you "extra" time on the real test)
32-33 with standard time each session
34-36 with no time limit

It absolutely makes a difference for the ACT.

Interesting. Was the test with the no time limit the first test that she took or the last test?

Not sure why this is a surprise - ACT is a timed test. So with extra time, scores should go up. Also one can have time to check answers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wealthier the parents, the greater the probability of children having debilitating learning difficulties, that need remedying by allowing the children extra time on standardized tests. This, when coupled with expensive one-to-one coaching over a long time, brings out the true genius in these children. With legacy, early admission, and full-pay as cherry on top, these children will become newly minted matriculates of the Ivies. With the generous practice by Ivies of grade inflation, free tutoring, ensuring that no one fails, these children will one day become adults and graduates of the said Ivies. Finally, the trusted family connections come in handy in securing lucrative careers for the newly minted Ivy graduates of the wealthy.

What is not to love of American education and social class system! When we soon get rid of the one small irksome problem of universities giving consideration for children of URM, first-gen, poor families, voila! we will have devised the perfect cycle for perpetuating our wealthy dynasties.

.

Plus people have spent good $$ to have test say that college does matter for middle class whites so they stop even competing in the wealthy class college game never realizing that unless your kid is a top student at state they are shutout of the best jobs and grad programs. Everyone is a winner graduating from top schools as far as jobs and grad school is concerned so the class is maintained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Board approves 94% of requests??? So there is no real investigation? Who ever said it was difficult to get extra time accommodation is full of hog wash. A 94% approval rate is not an indication that it is difficult to get approval.

College board requires proof of diagnosis for accomodations. Once you have a qualified diagnosis, who is the College Board to say that the kid's diagnosis isn't valid? Getting an evaluation to get a diagnosis is an $$$ multiday process. All of you people implying that parents and kids are faking should count your lucky stars that your kid doesn't have a learning disability or other learning challenges.

So you are saying every person getting extra time truly has a learning disability that requires another hour of time to complete the test?

You have no evidence to doubt that they have a "true learning disability". A qualified medical professional has made the diagnosis according to the criteria of their profession and recommended accommodations as appropriate. In most cases the student has accommodations documented at their school in the form of a 504 or IEP, evidence that the school finds the disability compelling. But go ahead believing that all these kids are "fakers" since that's your worldview.

Many of our kids struggled since birth and by age 2 are in many hours of week therapies. Those who deny the need do not have kids with struggles or struggles themselves.

+1 They like to feel victimized by kids struggling with medical diagnoses. Really, the only way these people are underprivileged is by having a complete lack of empathy.

But no one is taking a thing away from those kids who are struggling. Giving extra time to all the test takers would not benefit the kids that do not need it, they would simply finish up and leave early but it could benefit kids who would like more time to read the answers.

+1. Why are parents with the “true” accomodations for their own DC so reluctant to give extra time to all? Maybe the playing field would truly be level...

[Anonymous]

Wow, this thread struck a nerve. There’s a shocker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not give all of the test takers extra time. If they finish early, they can leave. If they need the extra time for whatever reason (maybe undiagnosed LD) they will have it along with the test takers who need the additional time.

I agree with this. Our child needs additional time because of diabetes. They need to measure blood sugar and inject insulin if blood sugar is high or eat/drink something if blood sugar is low. My friend's child gets additional time because of epilepsy: their brain sometimes stops working for a few seconds here and there. Therefore it would be unfair to the truly sick kids to disallow the additional time for all. Everybody should be able to take as much time as they need.

We have a friend’s DC who had extra time for the ACT and scored 36 out of 36. DC has diabetes. What should have been given was time in between the sections for the DC to eat and test sugar/insulin levels - not extra time to do a speed based test. DC is now seeking extra time on MCAT.

There are kids with diabetes that get extra time and are allowed to have snacks in the room with them.

Diabetic kids should not get extra time on tests but extra time between sections of the tests to check insulin level etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this sounds crazy, but I don't see how extra time helps. I was smart and affluent and always finished early. I'm a fast reader and extra time wouldn't have helped me.

It does not help. This is very well documented. People want to believe it would help so they can blame kids with LD's for their kids low scores.

It isn't well documented. Stop making stuff up

give your kid the test timed, then untimed... compare the score.. your child is not going to magically become a genius with a few extra minutes.

I tried it. The scores were indeed much higher untimed.

+1

My daughter did too. She timed herself all the time on ACT.

28-30 with 5min less each session (it stresses to practice this way to allow you "extra" time on the real test)
32-33 with standard time each session
34-36 with no time limit

It absolutely makes a difference for the ACT.

Interesting. Was the test with the no time limit the first test that she took or the last test?

Not sure why this is a surprise - ACT is a timed test. So with extra time, scores should go up. Also one can have time to check answers.

Sure. But my question is whether she took the 2 timed tests first and then took the test with no time limit. Or did she take the test with no time limit first followed by the 2 timed tests. (you also tend to get a bump in score with repeated attempts).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:my DD, HFA and ADHD. She is fine for 1 hour. But, when they did the Neuropsych evaluation, they could see the fatigue killed her ability to think. To the point where, in the early sections she would score in the 99% percentile, but the later sections, the 40% percentile, leading to an overall FSIQ of 112. But, in another test, which was shorter duration, she measured at 138.

She has 50% extra time. Frankly, she would be happy with regular time but longer breaks. That option does not exist.

What it did was allowed her to get refocused while taking the SATs.

In in-class tests, she usually does not need extra time. The AP tests did require it.

Sometimes, the issues are real. As for the lack of extra time in the real world, 10 minute breaks to get up an walk around are usually acceptable, at least in my job.

The ACT has an option to take it over multiple days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this sounds crazy, but I don't see how extra time helps. I was smart and affluent and always finished early. I'm a fast reader and extra time wouldn't have helped me.

It does not help. This is very well documented. People want to believe it would help so they can blame kids with LD's for their kids low scores.

It isn't well documented. Stop making stuff up

give your kid the test timed, then untimed... compare the score.. your child is not going to magically become a genius with a few extra minutes.

I tried it. The scores were indeed much higher untimed.

+1

My daughter did too. She timed herself all the time on ACT.

28-30 with 5min less each session (it stresses to practice this way to allow you "extra" time on the real test)
32-33 with standard time each session
34-36 with no time limit

It absolutely makes a difference for the ACT.

No. It doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this sounds crazy, but I don't see how extra time helps. I was smart and affluent and always finished early. I'm a fast reader and extra time wouldn't have helped me.

It does not help. This is very well documented. People want to believe it would help so they can blame kids with LD's for their kids low scores.

It isn't well documented. Stop making stuff up

give your kid the test timed, then untimed... compare the score.. your child is not going to magically become a genius with a few extra minutes.

I tried it. The scores were indeed much higher untimed.

+1

My daughter did too. She timed herself all the time on ACT.

28-30 with 5min less each session (it stresses to practice this way to allow you "extra" time on the real test)
32-33 with standard time each session
34-36 with no time limit

It absolutely makes a difference for the ACT.

No. It doesn't.

If a kid does not complete the test, yes, it absolutely does make a difference. If a kid races to answer questions and basically guesses at the last answers - yes, it does make a difference.

[Anonymous]

The research is clear. Extra time makes a difference for only certain students on the SAT/ ACT - those students who can already score well within the time allotted. Extra time doesn't do anything for students with or without disabilities who get average scores or below. If you don't know how to solve a problem, you can get all the time you want and it won't help you. Extra time significantly increases scores for everyone who is already scoring high no matter if you have a documented learning disability, ADHD, etc. If you can solve all the problems extra time gives you the opportunity to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tidbits from article:

At Scarsdale High school north of NY city, one in five students is eligible for extra time or another accommodation such as a separate room for taking the SAT or ACT college entrance exam.
At Weston High School in CT, it is one in four.
At Newton North High School outside Boston, it’s one in three.

Public schools in wealthier areas: where no more than 10% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunches, an average of 4.2% of students have the 504 designation compared to only 1.6% of kids in public schools where 75% or more are eligible for free and reduced cost lunches.


The evidence there - the system is being gamed and tilted to those w extra time. Extra time for all.

Shocking that a good article could come from the Journal.

I know some people who work there. The Journal is under Murdoch's thumb. He twists their coverage (obvious in their opinion pages, less obvious in their news pages) to push "conservative" ideas that just *happen* to benefit him and his family.

This article slipped through. But in general, don't read the Wall Street Journal. It's a propaganda organ, and it's bad for America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The solution is to not give extra time period to any student.

Have students with challenges, write an essay how they are challenged and have schools conduct in-person interviews/assessments to verify the challenges and then they can take that into account when factoring in test scores.

But this processes should happen after the test is taken in normal conditions.

Do we lower the hoop in the nba to accommodate people who are vertically challenged?

This has to be the most stupid suggestion I've ever seen regarding the issue. You have no clue about children with learning disabilities. You aren't intelligent enough to realize how ridiculous your comparison of short nba players to students with learning disabilities is.