This Atlantic article was written by Caitlin Flanagan, a conservative with an agenda. Read it with a grain of salt.

Much of the article is ok. Sounds like she got the untimed test rates wrong, but yes many parents at Harvard-Westlake are a bit aggressive.

But then Flanagan gets into more usual GOP talking points. One of the goals of the GOP (articles like this fill the rightwing press, which most of DCUM probably doesn’t read) is to blame America’s problems on Hollywood and the upper middle class to deflect blame from the billionaire class that is destroying the country.

Flanagan certainly lashes Hollywood.

But the giveaway is near the end. Flanagan says that what Kushner did (dad legally bribing Harvard directly) ISNT THAT BAD because Harvard gets to spend the money. Come again? I did a double-take. Only a conservative would say the real problem is upper middle class parents, not legalized open bribery.

The Atlantic is an an awesome publication in general, but Flanagan is near the bottom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every person on these threads who is fixated on extra time or other accommodations that children with disabilities are legally entitled to needs to take a big step back.

You can join the cadre of privileged parents who are convinced, despite all data to the contrary (or no data at all), that their kids must have "lost" their seat -- or may "lose" a seat -- to a minority applicant.

Your kid is not necessarily the best-qualified applicant. Your child was NEVER promised a seat at these institutions. There are no outside forces conspiring to deny your of something they kid of what was rightly theirs.

Your behavior is frankly no different than the parents who berated Flanagan for their child's poor results during admissions season.

The extra time accommodations are not personalized. So some are definitely getting an advantage and then there is the abuse of the system. When those who are getting the accommodations protest too much about giving every child longer or untimed to take the tests or make the test less about speed, then one can’t help but wonder why.

Yes, they are personalized. The school asks for the amount of time that a student receives in school. Some students get 1.5 time, some get 2x time, and a very few are approved for unlimited time for ADHD (those are supposed to be for a student with multiple and severe disabilities - think a Stephen Hawking-level of complex issues).

But of course, if you are bribing someone in the SSD office of the College Board (as Singer did), your child is likely to receive unlimited time to complete the exam.

-public school counselor who submits these requests

You need more critical thinking. That is not personalized if the time is 1.5 or 2x or unlimited. None of the kids that are tested has a time specifically tailored to their disability. Maybe only extra half hour is needed or 3 x rather than 2x. Some kids are given more time and some kids are given less time than they actually need. There is currently no accurate measurement. The system needs to change. The tests need to change - remove the t8me element, change the tests based on knowledge rather than speed, etc.

Great essay. This sentence in particular... "A successful first meeting often consisted of walking them back from the crack pipe of Harvard to the Adderall crash of Middlebury and then scheduling a follow-up meeting to douse them with the bong water of Denison." LOL!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every person on these threads who is fixated on extra time or other accommodations that children with disabilities are legally entitled to needs to take a big step back.

You can join the cadre of privileged parents who are convinced, despite all data to the contrary (or no data at all), that their kids must have "lost" their seat -- or may "lose" a seat -- to a minority applicant.

Your kid is not necessarily the best-qualified applicant. Your child was NEVER promised a seat at these institutions. There are no outside forces conspiring to deny your of something they kid of what was rightly theirs.

Your behavior is frankly no different than the parents who berated Flanagan for their child's poor results during admissions season.

The extra time accommodations are not personalized. So some are definitely getting an advantage and then there is the abuse of the system. When those who are getting the accommodations protest too much about giving every child longer or untimed to take the tests or make the test less about speed, then one can’t help but wonder why.

Yes, they are personalized. The school asks for the amount of time that a student receives in school. Some students get 1.5 time, some get 2x time, and a very few are approved for unlimited time for ADHD (those are supposed to be for a student with multiple and severe disabilities - think a Stephen Hawking-level of complex issues).

But of course, if you are bribing someone in the SSD office of the College Board (as Singer did), your child is likely to receive unlimited time to complete the exam.

-public school counselor who submits these requests

Anonymous wrote:Most parents do not begrudge the kids who actually deserve the accommodations. What they have a problem with is that 1/3-1/2 of kids in Big 3 classes get accommodations, while their own kids struggle to finish the same test in two-thirds of the time. It’s a thing, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Believe me, the Big 3 are not suddenly filling their classes with loads of LD kids.

This I totally agree with. The schools are complicit and contributing to this and need to push back (public schools certainly do -- come over to the SN board and read about some of the hoops public schools put parents who are seeking accommodations through).

Starting in 2016-17, the College Board changed its policy and no longer allowed parents to apply for accommodations directly (unless a parent is homeschooling). The schools are supposed to submit documentation that the student has been diagnosed with a disability, and that the student uses them on every school test, and if so, how much time.

At least in my kid's schools, if you do not use the accommodations 75-80% of the time (and not just on standardized tests the school) the school will tell the College Board that.

Private schools need to grow a backbone. It is exceedingly rare for students with good grades through 9th or 10th grade, to suddenly develop a disability that warrants accommodations. The child may well have a late-diagnosed disability, but not all disabilities impact school performance.

Most parents do not begrudge the kids who actually deserve the accommodations. What they have a problem with is that 1/3-1/2 of kids in Big 3 classes get accommodations, while their own kids struggle to finish the same test in two-thirds of the time. It’s a thing, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Believe me, the Big 3 are not suddenly filling their classes with loads of LD kids.

Anonymous wrote:Every person on these threads who is fixated on extra time or other accommodations that children with disabilities are legally entitled to needs to take a big step back.

You can join the cadre of privileged parents who are convinced, despite all data to the contrary (or no data at all), that their kids must have "lost" their seat -- or may "lose" a seat -- to a minority applicant.

Your kid is not necessarily the best-qualified applicant. Your child was NEVER promised a seat at these institutions. There are no outside forces conspiring to deny your of something they kid of what was rightly theirs.

Your behavior is frankly no different than the parents who berated Flanagan for their child's poor results during admissions season.

The extra time accommodations are not personalized. So some are definitely getting an advantage and then there is the abuse of the system. When those who are getting the accommodations protest too much about giving every child longer or untimed to take the tests or make the test less about speed, then one can’t help but wonder why.

Every person on these threads who is fixated on extra time or other accommodations that children with disabilities are legally entitled to needs to take a big step back.

You can join the cadre of privileged parents who are convinced, despite all data to the contrary (or no data at all), that their kids must have "lost" their seat -- or may "lose" a seat -- to a minority applicant.

Your kid is not necessarily the best-qualified applicant. Your child was NEVER promised a seat at these institutions. There are no outside forces conspiring to deny your of something they kid of what was rightly theirs.

Your behavior is frankly no different than the parents who berated Flanagan for their child's poor results during admissions season.

Anonymous wrote:Thinking fast and bubbling fast are two entirely different things.

No, except for the subset of kids with hand or eye issues.

Anonymous wrote:OP, this is what they should do. They should allow everyone a set time to take the test--a LONG set time, so it stops being a speed test and becomes a test about what they know and how they reason.

I've come full circle on this. My DD has a genetic eye condition, and she has to strain to see. Her eye muscles give out after focusing close for long periods of time. I used to not want her to have any accomodations because "life doesn't give you extra time." A doctor finally convinced me that that is the wrong thought process..."life is not a speed test where you must keep your eyes focused for 3 hours straight" is more like it.

So let's test what the kids know and how they think, not how fast they can squiggle it into a bubble.

Some poster keeps suggesting this. But I keep coming back to, do you really want your kid to have the same—albeit long—testing time as my magnet kid? Make no mistake, the magnet kids are driven and they’ll stay to the bitter end. As will any kid who is shooting for a somewhat competitive college, just because they worry that others applying to the same college are taking the test over the same day/days. We shouldn’t underestimate the drive that hits kids mid-junior year. Such long tests probably couldn’t be held on a Saturday morning like they are now, and might therefore be held during the school week, so that everybody gets time off to take the test all day. And kids from backgrounds where applying to college isn’t the norm will see a really long test as an even huger hurdle.

Pretty soon, the tests will become an all-day, or multiple days, grueling ordeal that even somewhat ambitious kids think they have to tough out. Staying to the end will become the norm for any somewhat ambitious kid.

Most kids will do really well with the extra time. So to tease out differences among the hundreds of thousands of nearly perfect scores, the folks at the College Board will have to make the test tougher.

Meanwhile, your child, who I agree deserves accommodations, will have list the advantage of extra time.

I can’t see anyone who would benefit from this (besides the College Board which could charge more for longer tests), and I think most kids would be a lot worse off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, this is what they should do. They should allow everyone a set time to take the test--a LONG set time, so it stops being a speed test and becomes a test about what they know and how they reason.

I've come full circle on this. My DD has a genetic eye condition, and she has to strain to see. Her eye muscles give out after focusing close for long periods of time. I used to not want her to have any accomodations because "life doesn't give you extra time." A doctor finally convinced me that that is the wrong thought process..."life is not a speed test where you must keep your eyes focused for 3 hours straight" is more like it.

So let's test what the kids know and how they think, not how fast they can squiggle it into a bubble.

I completely agree.

Except the world does value the ability to think rapidly so these tests measure that ability. And all of your garbage accommodations and handicaps cheat those metrics.

I have a kid with a LD who does very well in real life critical thinking. She does less well in academic standardized testing --although very well in the classroom. For her, she just needs to get through school and most jobs require a college degree, so she has to get through college, too. I suspect she will end up in sales because she is incredibly persuasive (would probably be a lawyer but all fo the reading is too much since she is dyslexic). Her accommodations are not harming your kid's score, trust me on this. I'm sure she'd gladly trade her accommodations for not having dyslexia and ADHD. She works incredibly hard to be at the same level as other kids. She will get through college and I have no doubt, be successful. IN real life, work ethic and common sense mean more than bubbling speed.

Thinking fast and bubbling fast are two entirely different things.

Except the world does value the ability to think rapidly so these tests measure that ability. And all of your garbage accommodations and handicaps cheat those metrics.