Anonymous
Post 05/23/2019 09:37     Subject: Re:The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My TJ kid has a GAI IQ of more than 145. PS 100. That’s three full SDs. It has taken so much effort for them to perform at a school like TJ with such a variation in subtests. Does not get extra time to turn in assignments (which would be pointless, because the workload is so high they would just be digging themselves in a hole). Uses extended time at school for tests in advanced math, Chem and physics only. Does not seem to need it for reading based activities and assessments. Has the accommodation for both sections on the SAT, because it really isn’t an option to only get it for math. But finished the verbal with a lot of time to spare.


You DD is obviously very bright and motivated. While her GAI is above 145 her actual full scale IQ is above 130. She is intellectually gifted by all accounts.

Her processing speed is perfectly average. The deviation between her high scores and low scores is indicative of a possible LD but it’s not an LD by itself. How can being average at something be an LD by itself? It’s not. You allude to her being diagnosed with ADHD.

As a parent you are always going to want to see your child in the best possible way. You choose to look at the score which includes her strengths. You concede processing speed is important enough to warrant an LD and extra time, but you don’t include it in her IQ score or SAT score.

She does not need extra time on reading? Why? Because this is a strength for her. She is an extremely gifted reader. She needs extra time with math because this is a weakness for her. But extra time washes that distinction away. Why? She didn’t need it for one area. Why does she get it for the other?

You are essentially saying “my daughter is smart except for processing speed. So don’t take that into account for her.”

For other kids with average processing speed, yes. Make them rush through the test. Not her though.


Also, kids with high processing speed but relatively low IQ get punished.


DD is strongly ADHD. And the deviation between OS and GAI causes the problems. Also, one of her processing scores is 1%. It’s hard to explain, but her psychiatrist says it’s like putting one foot on the gas and one foot on the accelerator. She has had to learn how to slow down and work through complex problems step by step. She used to do complex problems in her head, make a small error, and just write down an incorrect answer.

She did not use accommodations on the TJ test, because she wasn’t available on accommodations day. Her math test was so low, I was surprised she was admitted (40/50, Old test). Her verbal score was perfect (50/50, old test). She refused accommodations for Math 3 and got a C+. Agreed to use them going forward and is now an A-/B+ math student.

If she understands TJ math, which is very, very deep and hard, not just time constrained, at an A-/B+ level, why should she not be allowed to demonstrate that? Are colleges looking for fast? Or kids who really understand the subject.

BtW, she is killing it in physics and wants to major in that.
Anonymous
Post 05/23/2019 09:23     Subject: Re:The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:
My TJ kid has a GAI IQ of more than 145. PS 100. That’s three full SDs. It has taken so much effort for them to perform at a school like TJ with such a variation in subtests. Does not get extra time to turn in assignments (which would be pointless, because the workload is so high they would just be digging themselves in a hole). Uses extended time at school for tests in advanced math, Chem and physics only. Does not seem to need it for reading based activities and assessments. Has the accommodation for both sections on the SAT, because it really isn’t an option to only get it for math. But finished the verbal with a lot of time to spare.


You DD is obviously very bright and motivated. While her GAI is above 145 her actual full scale IQ is above 130. She is intellectually gifted by all accounts.

Her processing speed is perfectly average. The deviation between her high scores and low scores is indicative of a possible LD but it’s not an LD by itself. How can being average at something be an LD by itself? It’s not. You allude to her being diagnosed with ADHD.

As a parent you are always going to want to see your child in the best possible way. You choose to look at the score which includes her strengths. You concede processing speed is important enough to warrant an LD and extra time, but you don’t include it in her IQ score or SAT score.

She does not need extra time on reading? Why? Because this is a strength for her. She is an extremely gifted reader. She needs extra time with math because this is a weakness for her. But extra time washes that distinction away. Why? She didn’t need it for one area. Why does she get it for the other?

You are essentially saying “my daughter is smart except for processing speed. So don’t take that into account for her.”

For other kids with average processing speed, yes. Make them rush through the test. Not her though.


Also, kids with high processing speed but relatively low IQ get punished.
Anonymous
Post 05/23/2019 08:47     Subject: Re:The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
My TJ kid has a GAI IQ of more than 145. PS 100. That’s three full SDs. It has taken so much effort for them to perform at a school like TJ with such a variation in subtests. Does not get extra time to turn in assignments (which would be pointless, because the workload is so high they would just be digging themselves in a hole). Uses extended time at school for tests in advanced math, Chem and physics only. Does not seem to need it for reading based activities and assessments. Has the accommodation for both sections on the SAT, because it really isn’t an option to only get it for math. But finished the verbal with a lot of time to spare.


You DD is obviously very bright and motivated. While her GAI is above 145 her actual full scale IQ is above 130. She is intellectually gifted by all accounts.

Her processing speed is perfectly average. The deviation between her high scores and low scores is indicative of a possible LD but it’s not an LD by itself. How can being average at something be an LD by itself? It’s not. You allude to her being diagnosed with ADHD.

As a parent you are always going to want to see your child in the best possible way. You choose to look at the score which includes her strengths. You concede processing speed is important enough to warrant an LD and extra time, but you don’t include it in her IQ score or SAT score.

She does not need extra time on reading? Why? Because this is a strength for her. She is an extremely gifted reader. She needs extra time with math because this is a weakness for her. But extra time washes that distinction away. Why? She didn’t need it for one area. Why does she get it for the other?

You are essentially saying “my daughter is smart except for processing speed. So don’t take that into account for her.”

For other kids with average processing speed, yes. Make them rush through the test. Not her though.
Anonymous
Post 05/23/2019 08:40     Subject: The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I vote for untimed tests for all.
My DC's main complaint with SAT was running out of time, as a regular bright kid


Obviously not that bright.


Have you taken the test? My DC who scored a 34 said he ran out of time and could not double check his answers. Obviously you must be in the camp of parents who got extended time for their kids and refuses to acknowledge that too much time was given and an unfair advantage was created.
Anonymous
Post 05/23/2019 08:25     Subject: The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:I vote for untimed tests for all.
My DC's main complaint with SAT was running out of time, as a regular bright kid


Obviously not that bright.
Anonymous
Post 05/22/2019 20:16     Subject: The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
I vote for untimed tests for all.
My DC's main complaint with SAT was running out of time, as a regular bright kid
Anonymous
Post 05/22/2019 20:15     Subject: Re:The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To the parents who manage to get their kids more time on SAT, why can't you admit that fact on the score report?


As a parent, I didn't write my kid's score report. Did you write your kid's?

SAT chooses what is included on the score report. Given that confidentiality is a concern, they do not include information about extended time, or braille, or scribes, or breaks to check one's blood sugar, or whether one used a ramp to get in the building.


SAT should include the information about extended time on the score report, which is not confidential information. They won't and shouldn't report why your kids receive the extra time.

As a parent, you should teach your kids to be honest. Hiding the fact of extended time given is cheating.

So, your view is that students should disclose that they have a disability even though they're not saying specifically which one.

Advocates for students with disabilities said that the practice undercut these students' applications, and -- with backing from courts -- their argument led testing organizations to end flagging. ACT did so in 2003.

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2018/10/08/act-ends-practice-over-which-it-was-sued-advocates-students
Anonymous
Post 05/22/2019 20:07     Subject: Re:The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To the parents who manage to get their kids more time on SAT, why can't you admit that fact on the score report?


As a parent, I didn't write my kid's score report. Did you write your kid's?

SAT chooses what is included on the score report. Given that confidentiality is a concern, they do not include information about extended time, or braille, or scribes, or breaks to check one's blood sugar, or whether one used a ramp to get in the building.


SAT should include the information about extended time on the score report, which is not confidential information. They won't and shouldn't report why your kids receive the extra time.

As a parent, you should teach your kids to be honest. Hiding the fact of extended time given is cheating.
Anonymous
Post 05/22/2019 20:06     Subject: The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
My TJ kid has a GAI IQ of more than 145. PS 100. That’s three full SDs. It has taken so much effort for them to perform at a school like TJ with such a variation in subtests. Does not get extra time to turn in assignments (which would be pointless, because the workload is so high they would just be digging themselves in a hole). Uses extended time at school for tests in advanced math, Chem and physics only. Does not seem to need it for reading based activities and assessments. Has the accommodation for both sections on the SAT, because it really isn’t an option to only get it for math. But finished the verbal with a lot of time to spare.

SAT superscore by mid- Junior year (with extended time) of 1520 (740V/ 780M). 800 in Math 2 and physics 2 subject tests. Lit and US History coming up in June to see which is stronger.

Surviving, and now thriving, at TJ with this academic profile is really impressive, and I am am very proud. Despite the slight boost in time on some STEM tests, they have developed the skills to manage time, chunk large projects, prioritize work, work with groups on group projects and lab partners on their timelines, find a study environment without distractions, etc. They still won’t put the ADHD in college apps. While I might think it’s amazing how hard they have worked and how far they have come and that any college should be impressed by what they have overcome, and what they have accomplished with an LD, with no change or extensions to the TJ curriculum. But, there’s a stigma.

That said, they’ll be fine in the workforce. The SAT isn’t what makes them a good hire. It’s the high school and college education. And they will complete every assignment for every class on time, just like they do now.

We might ask for math/ physics extended test time in college as well, depending on if it seems necessary. But, that’s it. Either they can show up, attend class, do the reading, participate, understand the material, write papers, turn in assignments on time or they can’t. The little bit of extra time to do SAT math or even college math tests isn’t going to make them a bad hire if they can otherwise manage the workload.

And that’s the key. Most jobs are about managing a workload, not taking high stakes test for speed over accuracy.

And I’ll wait it again. 3SDa between PS and GAI IQ (more than 45 points). Finding a way to academically achieve at a high level with that significant an LD is impressive.

I’m very profound of my kid. They will do fine.
Anonymous
Post 05/22/2019 19:40     Subject: Re:The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am wondering where is this place that a child with a disability has the field tilted for them. They have an uphill slog regardless of extra time or not. The extra time makes the hill a little bit less steep.


yes - because you are tilting it. at our expense.
You missed the point.
Anonymous
Post 05/22/2019 19:38     Subject: Re:The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:I am wondering where is this place that a child with a disability has the field tilted for them. They have an uphill slog regardless of extra time or not. The extra time makes the hill a little bit less steep.


yes - because you are tilting it. at our expense.
Anonymous
Post 05/22/2019 18:56     Subject: Re:The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:LOL, you people are so angry...it is comical. So glad my ADHD kid got his deserved extra time that he needed and scored well on the ACT and got into his first choice top 20 school. As for what is done to curb the abuse, I doubt it will change much. Maybe be more careful about who gets accommodations. If you have a kid who struggled since elementary school, it is doubtful that kid is "gaming the system." I believe it is more suspect when kids suddenly in late middle school or in high school decide to get evaluated. Maybe just have more stringent requirements for evaluation for them.

But you will NEVER see the accommodations go away. Sorry, but you won't win this one...nice try though.


Sure it will. Your kid will have a hard time in a top 20 school bc of his SN.


LOL, I doubt that very much as he got a 36 on the act and had a 4.2 GPA -- extremely gifted. They also have accommodations in the top 20 school. And his processing speed has been improving, so maybe he won't need the accommodations. Nice try again. Jealous your kid only got in his safety I guess


Given sufficient time there are loads of kids that could get a 36 but that’s not really the point, is it?


Has this been verified by research? Someone with, say normal processing speed gets smarter given more time? Inclined to have some doubts.
Anonymous
Post 05/22/2019 18:15     Subject: Re:The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:I am wondering where is this place that a child with a disability has the field tilted for them. They have an uphill slog regardless of extra time or not. The extra time makes the hill a little bit less steep.


I agree.

My kid's disability played role in what his teachers write in recommendations. It played a role in what extracurriculars he could manage. It played a role in what courses he could handle. It played a role in the grades he got. Many college doors will be closed for him because of those things. His ACT score, taken with double time over multiple days, was a chance for him to show that yes, under ideal circumstances he is capable of grade level work. But it's not like it somehow undid all the other ways that his disability impacts him. He's not stealing anyone's spot because of an unfair score. He's using it to add one more thing to the picture. And since he'll use the same kinds of accommodations in college that he had on the test, such as spreading his coursework over 5 years and summers to allow him extra time for assignments, his ACT is an accurate predictor for how he'll do.
Anonymous
Post 05/22/2019 18:00     Subject: Re:The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
I am wondering where is this place that a child with a disability has the field tilted for them. They have an uphill slog regardless of extra time or not. The extra time makes the hill a little bit less steep.
Anonymous
Post 05/22/2019 17:58     Subject: The very definition of "standardized" means same test/same testing conditions
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:And yet, the argument is always made in terms of take away the extra time for SN kids instead of give everyone more (or enough) time, so that the tests assess knowledge/ability rather than speed.


That is incorrect - people are asking for untimed tests or extra time for all. The ones opposing are the parents who have accomodations for their kids with their reasonings that extra time does not help, you don’t understand SN, etc. They protest too much hence one begins to suspect that too much time has been given which helped their kids more than it should have.


That's like saying you want to be able to park in the handicapped spot even though you don't have a disability. Or that you should be able to have a therapy dog on the plane even though you don't have a condition that warrants one. Let's think about that for a sec. If you let everyone have the handicapped spots, there will be none for those who need them. If you let everyone take a dog on the plane, there would be mayhem and those who need the therapy will be stressed.

Giving everyone the extra time does one thing. It puts those who have the disabilities in the same position as having no extra time. That's because the scores of those who don't need the time will potentially increase and adjust the curve to a point that ends up putting the special needs kids at the same disadvantage before the increased time. If that is the case, why bother even giving the extra time.

I think what bothers people is the fact that some of these "disabled" kids are also gifted, and providing the accommodations allows them to demonstrate their giftedness. [b]Sadly some people don't like the idea that some kid with autism is outscoring their kid. Really pathetic.[/b

I am wondering where is this place that a child with a disability has the field tilted for them. They have an uphill slog regardless of extra time or not. The extra time makes the hill a little bit less steep.

Yes, there are those who "game the system" but the solution to give everyone extra time is not a good one. ACT and College Board must have more stringent standards for approving accommodations -- especially where there is no history of accommodations in school. That alone should be a red flag.


there is absolutely nothing pathetic about not wanting your kid to be outscored. nobody wants that, least of all on DCUM. if you are so generous and don’t care about outscoring others why do YOU need to make sure that your child scores as high as he can to the point where you are ready to tilt the field for him? I mean at some point I get what you are doing but to then turn around and lecture others on selflessness is beyond rich.