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.

Give everyone the time. If we truly want to know what everyone can do without the time constraints which may obscure abilities of those who haven't been fortunate to have been tested to get accommodation. What's the problem?

Pp you’re responding to. Sure, give everyone the time. I don’t care. I don’t have to figure out the logistics. If they can do it, go for it.

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 for a variety of reasons we decided to define academic performance in terms of speed.

It is possible to create a test that assesses thinking without relying on speed as much, but this is not how it’s done in US.

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.

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?

For the same reason my kid with 13th percentile sprinting speed shouldn't get a 40-meter head start in the 100 meter dash.

That's a stupid analogy.

The 100-meter dash is a competition to run the fastest. Speed is the point.

The SAT is an assessment of knowledge. If you know geometry, it doesn't matter if it takes you 30 minutes to answer a series of geometry questions and not 15. There are lots of areas of study (and professions) that don't require speed.

Then why is the test timed at all? Everyone deserves the chance to take as much time as they need.

For so many situations, this is the answer. When I taught that's what I always did. I intended for the test to take about 75% of the class period. For most kids it did, and they finished early and did work. For some it took the whole time. And once in a while someone wouldn't finish, and they'd be welcome to come back and finish later.

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.

Give everyone the time. If we truly want to know what everyone can do without the time constraints which may obscure abilities of those who haven't been fortunate to have been tested to get accommodation. What's the problem?

I have a similar kid that is exceptionally smart but needs extra time because she has a physical disability that slows her typing.

And, I 100% support everyone getting unlimited time. I think you would find the vast majority of parents of kids that get extra time would be more than happy with an outcome where everyone gets as much time as they want and/or need.

Unfortunately the testing company hasn’t asked me my opinion on this subject.

My kid does get extra time but won't take it because of the stigma. So, get rid of the time constraint.

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.

Give everyone the time. If we truly want to know what everyone can do without the time constraints which may obscure abilities of those who haven't been fortunate to have been tested to get accommodation. What's the problem?

I have a similar kid that is exceptionally smart but needs extra time because she has a physical disability that slows her typing.

And, I 100% support everyone getting unlimited time. I think you would find the vast majority of parents of kids that get extra time would be more than happy with an outcome where everyone gets as much time as they want and/or need.

Unfortunately the testing company hasn’t asked me my opinion on this subject.

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?

For the same reason my kid with 13th percentile sprinting speed shouldn't get a 40-meter head start in the 100 meter dash.

That's a stupid analogy.

The 100-meter dash is a competition to run the fastest. Speed is the point.

The SAT is an assessment of knowledge. If you know geometry, it doesn't matter if it takes you 30 minutes to answer a series of geometry questions and not 15. There are lots of areas of study (and professions) that don't require speed.

Then why is the test timed at all? Everyone deserves the chance to take as much time as they need.

It’s timed because the company running it is a money making factory and they don’t care about your kid.

The whole industry should be audited.

The reason kids with disabilities get extra time is because it’s the law.

The parents of the kids with the disabilities specifically don't want everyone else to get adequate time.

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?

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?

For the same reason my kid with 13th percentile sprinting speed shouldn't get a 40-meter head start in the 100 meter dash.

That's a stupid analogy.

The 100-meter dash is a competition to run the fastest. Speed is the point.

The SAT is an assessment of knowledge. If you know geometry, it doesn't matter if it takes you 30 minutes to answer a series of geometry questions and not 15. There are lots of areas of study (and professions) that don't require speed.

Then why is the test timed at all? Everyone deserves the chance to take as much time as they need.

It’s timed because the company running it is a money making factory and they don’t care about your kid.

The whole industry should be audited.

The reason kids with disabilities get extra time is because it’s the law.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

For the same reason my kid with 13th percentile sprinting speed shouldn't get a 40-meter head start in the 100 meter dash.

That's a stupid analogy.

The 100-meter dash is a competition to run the fastest. Speed is the point.

The SAT is an assessment of knowledge. If you know geometry, it doesn't matter if it takes you 30 minutes to answer a series of geometry questions and not 15. There are lots of areas of study (and professions) that don't require speed.

Then why is the test timed at all? Everyone deserves the chance to take as much time as they need.

It is time for administrability.

It is one of the six measures of cognitive ability.

A kid with 13th percentile processing speed needs more time that a kid with median (or above median) processing speed.

Why does this bother you so much? Do you actually think that a kid with processing speed is going to have an advantage over a kid with median processing speed, or do you think that a kid who knows the subject matter, but has slow processing speed, is dumb?

DP.

(1) you didn’t address PP’s question as to why the test is timed at all

(2) processing speed is actually one of the primary measures of cognitive ability

It's times for administrability.

The SAT is a test of knowledge, not cognitive ability. Your confusion of the two underscores that the misconception that kids with EF issues shouldn't get accommodations because they're just dumb.

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.

Give everyone the time. If we truly want to know what everyone can do without the time constraints which may obscure abilities of those who haven't been fortunate to have been tested to get accommodation. What's the problem?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

For the same reason my kid with 13th percentile sprinting speed shouldn't get a 40-meter head start in the 100 meter dash.

That's a stupid analogy.

The 100-meter dash is a competition to run the fastest. Speed is the point.

The SAT is an assessment of knowledge. If you know geometry, it doesn't matter if it takes you 30 minutes to answer a series of geometry questions and not 15. There are lots of areas of study (and professions) that don't require speed.

Then why is the test timed at all? Everyone deserves the chance to take as much time as they need.

It’s for administrative feasibility. The SAT is an unspeeded test, meaning at least 75% of test takers have time to attempt every question.

But you could give everyone a choice - without needing to prove reason. Untimed SAT could be a separate test. Timed SAT is a separate test. Not everyone takes the SAT anyways with all the test-blind, test-optional.

Personally, I always thought the open book, take home exams were the worst and would take a timed exam any day.

From an equity standpoint, I think we all know there are plenty of students out there who’ve never been diagnosed/evaluated.

That is the crux of the problem. Our leaders do not want to spend the money to do diagnostic testing in schools, which is the equitable approach and solution. If each child was tested, our educators would be better positioned to support students K-12 (in theory at least) and standardized testing plans would be aligned with student abilities and performance history. Parents would then be less likely to game the system if their child didn't have a learning need.

I think that the parent gaming fear is wildly overblown on DCUM, but impossible to prove otherwise since we don't have a true diagnostic baseline. How many students have dyslexia or ADHD? No one knows.

Instead, students are inconsistently evaluated and supported, even in expensive private schools. Parents who pay for independent testing are undoubtedly wealthier, as insurance doesn't cover the testing and it is expensive. But that doesn't mean that all parents who pay for a neuropsych are trying to cheat. That is important for everyone here to understand. These conditions are real and verifiable!

Parents scream about evaluative testing in high school on DCUM, but really we should all be demanding better quality in meeting the needs of students in classrooms. Children are not widgets, and it's time we get smarter at offering more personalized education. Our country had the knowledge and tools to educate children better, just not the will to pay for it and implement it.

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.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/05/the-commons/686584/

I have seen this problem in private schools, I'm not sure it's quite as prevalent in public schools.

There is no need for times on testing. It should be unlimited for all. There is no good reason for these limits (except staffing). But at our school, parents proctor (not their kids' classes) and, even in grad school, TAs and kids who are not in the class proctor and were paid (a pittance) to do it.