Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Not true

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Employees get extensions on deadlines all the time. Stop being a prick.

But they have to ask and will be compared to the employees who don't.

In my workplace it is more important to do it right than to do it quickly. Those that are slower but produce better work get promoted more quickly.

You will all be replaced with AI soon enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Employees get extensions on deadlines all the time. Stop being a prick.

But they have to ask and will be compared to the employees who don't.

In my workplace it is more important to do it right than to do it quickly. Those that are slower but produce better work get promoted more quickly.

It’s tough. Everyone in this area knows multiple families with high status parents who use this loop hole for their less bright children. The reality is that not everyone is going to ace the SAT and that is OK. These kids (many in my own extended family) still have equal dignity and humanity and scoring low on a test is simply an indicator that they are not well suited to certain specific cognitive tasks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Employees get extensions on deadlines all the time. Stop being a prick.

But they have to ask and will be compared to the employees who don't.

Anonymous wrote:An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Employees get extensions on deadlines all the time. Stop being a prick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a big fan of accommodations.

So, my kid with 13th percentile processing speed shouldn't get more time on tests? Why, exactly?

Wait, are we really giving kids with "slow processing speed" extra time to equalize them with kids who do not have "slow processing speed"?

Why?

Because we want to test whether they learned material, not how quickly they can regurgitate it back.

NP. But if you have such a slow processing speed, isn't this eventually going to catch up with you? Will an employer pay you the same amount of money per hour as your co-workers if it takes you twice as long to do the work?

I've always been "slow" when it comes to math and never viewed it as a disability. I just knew that a career in engineering wouldn't be a smart decision and likely not feasible, so I just pivoted and found something that catered to my strengths. Not sure if we are doing these people any favors.

This assumes kids aren’t aware of their own disabilities and what careers are suitable to them.

My kid has a hearing disability. The school accommodates her. She is still aware she should not seek a career as a piano tuner. The school accommodating her hearing disability doesn’t make her lack self-awareness.

I doubt these kids are all self aware. They laugh at the idea they need the extra time. Look at the Varsity Blues scandal, the extra time was part of the ruse and the kids bragged about it. Zero self awareness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

Eliminating the time constraint means no one would need an accommodation. It would finally be accessible and fair to all and not leave anyone behind.

They want to keep the time constraint for everyone else. Otherwise, it wouldn't TRULY measure the relative abilities of their kids against the neurotypical kids.

I am one of the "they" and I don't think this. I think an untimed test for everyone would be just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This issue has been addressed as nauseum. Maybe not with respect to this particular editorial, but it has been greatly discussed. For those of us with kids with learning disabilities, it can be a very frustrating topic because learning disabilities are something you can’t see so people assume that you’re gaming the system when you’re not.

This is a lot like the service animal issue.
some people really need them but about 90% of the people claiming they need them do not actually need them.
This ruins it for everyone and now nobody really believes that anything other than a seeing eye dog is a service animal.

So when your 4.0 student with a 1400 on their SAT needs another hour on their SAT because they have some disability, it draws a lot of side-eye

Nobody gives a crap about a 3.0 student with a 950 SAT that needs more time because they can't sit still for 3 straight hours and needs an hour break in the middle of the exam.

My kid has a 4.0 and a 1500 on the SAT *because* they get the accommodations they need. The last time DC took a standardized test without accommodations was 7th grade, preparing for the SSAT, to prove a point. Got the 16th percentile on the reading/writing section and could only get through about 1/3 of the questions. Got 96th percentile with the accommodations (extra time and a reader, human at the time because it was paper testing, screen reader now).

DC is 2e — gifted and severely dyslexic, diagnosed at age 6. DC is not stupid. It’s an access issue, like a ramp for wheelchair users. Make the text *accessible* to DC’s brain, which literally processes language differently, and their *skill* is excellent.

OK, but how do you make performing surgery "accessible," or flying a plane, or the many other careers that require not just skill but speed and efficiency?

Of course not. People love to make this stupid argument. There are plenty of jobs that work with neurodivergent brains. No one — colleges or employers — is required to implement accommodations that make a situation unsafe. REASONABLE accommodations. A person with a paralyzed arm who can’t lift 50 pounds unaided cannot work in a warehouse that requires that physical task. A person who needs extra time to read is not going to become a paralegal with backbreaking loads of fine print to read. If my kid can’t do whatever is needed to be a surgeon within the requirements of the operating room, they can’t be a surgeon. That’s fine.

But no one will know your kid can’t do it until they actually hire him, because his test scores indicate no issues. Duh.

I promise you American Airlines doesn’t give a shit about your SAT score. That’s not how you become a pilot. Or a surgeon. Or even a lawyer.

What would prevent them from becoming a lawyer?

Law school.

My kid gets extra time on tests, but that isn’t going to help manage the volume of work required to successfully complete law school (or medical school, or whatever else). They aren’t going to be able to do it. And if a student with learning differences *can* get through law school (keep in mind no one gets extra time for assignments), then they can probably manage being a lawyer, too.

Most law schools have a single test at the end of the semester and that test determines your grade. Getting extra time on that test would be extremely useful.

+1 Also when I was in law school, people with accommodations were assigned note takers for class and would receive them weekly. And the really helpful thing was that their notes would come with an outline. Creating outlines for studying was one of the central ways we prepared for exams, and having someone hand you a ready made outline that had already picked out all the major concepts and organized them for you was a huge time saver. And then, yes, you'd get either time and a half or double time for exams. Some exams were extremely time pressured, so the extra time would mean the difference between fully completing answers or not. Huge advantage, especially if someone's disability was a trumped up ADHD diagnosis they bought of a doctor who was a family friend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways.

I'm the +100 PP. I am inferring that you and the PP do not think it is okay to be slow and that you don't think colleges do either. Therefore it is reasonable for parents not to want testing accomodations disclosed to colleges.

Ideally a person with low processing speed will build a career in jobs where that isn't an issue. But that decision isn't made when a person is applying to college. There are different types of jobs in every profession. I have the same qualifications as my DH and he worlds in a job that I wouldn't be good at. He would not be great at my job either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

Eliminating the time constraint means no one would need an accommodation. It would finally be accessible and fair to all and not leave anyone behind.

They want to keep the time constraint for everyone else. Otherwise, it wouldn't TRULY measure the relative abilities of their kids against the neurotypical kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

Did you get accommodations in school?

No, I was never diagnosed. I was suicidal though if that helps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that more of the parents on here who have kids who legitimately require accommodations could actually see the scrutiny here as a good thing, as those who falsely claim accommodations make it harder for those who truly need them. But most of those parents retreat to 'but my kid . . .' kind of arguments, and a failure to actually explain (or even be willing to have a conversation) around the nuances of when it's appropriate to have accommodations and when it's not.

Parent of a kid who has an IEP and received accommodations: A majority of the people posting here don't think anyone has a legitimate need for accommodations. They think everyone should take the same test under the same conditions, and if a kid gets a lower score (because he's ND or has a learning disability), that means he has lower cognitive aptitude, and thus will (and should) have fewer educational and professional opportunities available because he's not as bright. I don't see how scrutiny "is a good thing" here when the "scrutiny" means no one gets accommodations. I understand the concern about parents "buying test" results to get accommodations and that shouldn't be available. But let's be clear; the DCUM position is way more extreme.

+100

My kid has had extra time since kindergarten. Multiple teachers have agreed she needs it and would not be doing as well in school without it.

It's okay for some people to be a little slower. I am slow. I don't mean slow in the derogatory way that immature people use that word. I mean slow as in it takes me time to do things like read and write. Thankfully, I found a job that values quality over quantity and I have excelled in it. Our world needs people with all kinds of different strengths. A society loses out when it only accepts achievement that looks a certain way.

If it's ok to be slow then anyone who got extra time should have a footnote that they took the tests with extra time. It's ok to be slow, right?

Excellent point. But right now everyone who argues their kids should have extra time is vehemently opposed to the College Board indicating whether someone has had extra time. You can't have it both ways

If you indicated that the kid received extra time, it wouldn't be an accommodation. The concept of the accommodation is to prevent the disability from affecting the test score. Disclosing that the kid has extra time assumes that the extra time affected the test score. You want people to know that accommodations were granted because you don't believe the test score is accurate, given the accommodations. You might as well deny the acommodations because you reach the same result.

But if a key aspect of a particular exam is time, and someone has done the test with a relaxation of that key requirement, shouldn't it be noted?
And btw, this is the reason why so many people are gaming the system. If there was a note that the person had accommodations, then you wouldn't see that flagrant abuse.

The flagrant abuse would disappear because it never really helps as much as they hoped.

An employer isn't going to give you extra time on a deadline because you have ADHD and slow processing speed.

Being able to work quickly and efficiently is a valuable skill that should be measured!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a big fan of accommodations.

So, my kid with 13th percentile processing speed shouldn't get more time on tests? Why, exactly?

Wait, are we really giving kids with "slow processing speed" extra time to equalize them with kids who do not have "slow processing speed"?

Why?

Because we want to test whether they learned material, not how quickly they can regurgitate it back.

NP. But if you have such a slow processing speed, isn't this eventually going to catch up with you? Will an employer pay you the same amount of money per hour as your co-workers if it takes you twice as long to do the work?

I've always been "slow" when it comes to math and never viewed it as a disability. I just knew that a career in engineering wouldn't be a smart decision and likely not feasible, so I just pivoted and found something that catered to my strengths. Not sure if we are doing these people any favors.

This assumes kids aren’t aware of their own disabilities and what careers are suitable to them.

My kid has a hearing disability. The school accommodates her. She is still aware she should not seek a career as a piano tuner. The school accommodating her hearing disability doesn’t make her lack self-awareness.