Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP asking the most recent questions and trying to be careful.
My perspective is that in general, kids who face additional challenges (physical, academic, mental health, whatever you chose) can do better -- with appropriate supports -- than most people think they can. And those supports are generally less burdensome or problematic than people who do hiring usually think they will be. That's the point of ADA and other progressive legislation.
An if there is a question about erring on one side or the other, I'd much rather err on the side of giving chances than taking them away.
I think there are some deep waters ahead regarding the current scandal. I think a lot of underlying prejudice and bigotry is going to come out in our public conversations. I thought about the untimed proposition after reading the threads at DCUM, but something seemed like it was out of my grasp. Maybe I am reading the posts arguing for it in a particular tone of voice, but I read them as judgmental or with a sort of vindictiveness, although the idea itself seemed to have merit on the surface.
I know I am not clear on this.
Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP asking the most recent questions and trying to be careful.
My perspective is that in general, kids who face additional challenges (physical, academic, mental health, whatever you chose) can do better -- with appropriate supports -- than most people think they can. And those supports are generally less burdensome or problematic than people who do hiring usually think they will be. That's the point of ADA and other progressive legislation.
An if there is a question about erring on one side or the other, I'd much rather err on the side of giving chances than taking them away.
I think there are some deep waters ahead regarding the current scandal. I think a lot of underlying prejudice and bigotry is going to come out in our public conversations. I thought about the untimed proposition after reading the threads at DCUM, but something seemed like it was out of my grasp. Maybe I am reading the posts arguing for it in a particular tone of voice, but I read them as judgmental or with a sort of vindictiveness, although the idea itself seemed to have merit on the surface.
I know I am not clear on this.
Anonymous wrote:NP
I know this is dicey territory to wade into. I'm trying to understand.
For kids that need more time:
my understanding was that the basis for giving more time was that if they were given enough time, they could show their full knowledge and understanding of the material. That is, typical students could show this in less time, and they could show this in more time. It wasn't about needing to put more restrictions on the typical kids, but making sure the kids who needed more time could use it.
So I'm not understanding why giving everyone more than enough time wouldn't work (the "untimed" arguments above). Is it that if everyone has virtually unlimited time, there are going to be some kids who are never going to be able to be at the top? Is that the problem?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP
I know this is dicey territory to wade into. I'm trying to understand.
For kids that need more time:
my understanding was that the basis for giving more time was that if they were given enough time, they could show their full knowledge and understanding of the material. That is, typical students could show this in less time, and they could show this in more time. It wasn't about needing to put more restrictions on the typical kids, but making sure the kids who needed more time could use it.
So I'm not understanding why giving everyone more than enough time wouldn't work (the "untimed" arguments above). Is it that if everyone has virtually unlimited time, there are going to be some kids who are never going to be able to be at the top? Is that the problem?
Untimed is certainly an option but brings with it other challenges, such as paying proctors for a much longer day. And no one is permitted to leave until everyone in their room is finished uncurrent rules.
The additional time is meant to put students with disabilities (whose difficulty requires it) on an equal footing with typical students.
A typical student is expected to complete X in 60 minutes. For a student with a disability, the same level of challenge exists when they receive 90 minutes.
Most students with a disability won't complete any more answers in 90 minutes than a typical student would complete in 60.
Thanks for the response. I get that. And I also get that I might come off as a dick by asking further questions, so I'll try to be careful and will listen to criticism.
If the issues with paying proctors extra were sorted (and I imagine folding the costs of separate accommodations in would help, although not everyone could be folded in, of course), and if a solution was found to address people not being allowed to leave before everyone was finished -- is there a reason based on unfairness of accommodations to people who need more time than others, to not go for untimed tests? That is, are the issues merely practical problems, or is there a fairness problem, too?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP
I know this is dicey territory to wade into. I'm trying to understand.
For kids that need more time:
my understanding was that the basis for giving more time was that if they were given enough time, they could show their full knowledge and understanding of the material. That is, typical students could show this in less time, and they could show this in more time. It wasn't about needing to put more restrictions on the typical kids, but making sure the kids who needed more time could use it.
So I'm not understanding why giving everyone more than enough time wouldn't work (the "untimed" arguments above). Is it that if everyone has virtually unlimited time, there are going to be some kids who are never going to be able to be at the top? Is that the problem?
Untimed is certainly an option but brings with it other challenges, such as paying proctors for a much longer day. And no one is permitted to leave until everyone in their room is finished uncurrent rules.
The additional time is meant to put students with disabilities (whose difficulty requires it) on an equal footing with typical students.
A typical student is expected to complete X in 60 minutes. For a student with a disability, the same level of challenge exists when they receive 90 minutes.
Most students with a disability won't complete any more answers in 90 minutes than a typical student would complete in 60.
Except from what it sounds like, this isn't what happens. If you have a continuum of accommodations and needs, then it makes no sense that the accommodations are seemingly limited to 1.5x, 2x and untimed.
The reality is that you don't know whether the same level of challenge exists, you just cross your fingers and hope that it does. For some students maybe 75 minutes is all that's needed. If that's the case, then giving them 90 isn't the same.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP
I know this is dicey territory to wade into. I'm trying to understand.
For kids that need more time:
my understanding was that the basis for giving more time was that if they were given enough time, they could show their full knowledge and understanding of the material. That is, typical students could show this in less time, and they could show this in more time. It wasn't about needing to put more restrictions on the typical kids, but making sure the kids who needed more time could use it.
So I'm not understanding why giving everyone more than enough time wouldn't work (the "untimed" arguments above). Is it that if everyone has virtually unlimited time, there are going to be some kids who are never going to be able to be at the top? Is that the problem?
Untimed is certainly an option but brings with it other challenges, such as paying proctors for a much longer day. And no one is permitted to leave until everyone in their room is finished uncurrent rules.
The additional time is meant to put students with disabilities (whose difficulty requires it) on an equal footing with typical students.
A typical student is expected to complete X in 60 minutes. For a student with a disability, the same level of challenge exists when they receive 90 minutes.
Most students with a disability won't complete any more answers in 90 minutes than a typical student would complete in 60.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP
I know this is dicey territory to wade into. I'm trying to understand.
For kids that need more time:
my understanding was that the basis for giving more time was that if they were given enough time, they could show their full knowledge and understanding of the material. That is, typical students could show this in less time, and they could show this in more time. It wasn't about needing to put more restrictions on the typical kids, but making sure the kids who needed more time could use it.
So I'm not understanding why giving everyone more than enough time wouldn't work (the "untimed" arguments above). Is it that if everyone has virtually unlimited time, there are going to be some kids who are never going to be able to be at the top? Is that the problem?
Untimed is certainly an option but brings with it other challenges, such as paying proctors for a much longer day. And no one is permitted to leave until everyone in their room is finished uncurrent rules.
The additional time is meant to put students with disabilities (whose difficulty requires it) on an equal footing with typical students.
A typical student is expected to complete X in 60 minutes. For a student with a disability, the same level of challenge exists when they receive 90 minutes.
Most students with a disability won't complete any more answers in 90 minutes than a typical student would complete in 60.
Anonymous wrote:NP
I know this is dicey territory to wade into. I'm trying to understand.
For kids that need more time:
my understanding was that the basis for giving more time was that if they were given enough time, they could show their full knowledge and understanding of the material. That is, typical students could show this in less time, and they could show this in more time. It wasn't about needing to put more restrictions on the typical kids, but making sure the kids who needed more time could use it.
So I'm not understanding why giving everyone more than enough time wouldn't work (the "untimed" arguments above). Is it that if everyone has virtually unlimited time, there are going to be some kids who are never going to be able to be at the top? Is that the problem?
Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised at the level of outrage at other posters shown by the people whose kids have legitimate disabilities. If I were dealing with all of the difficulties that entailed, I would be outraged that non-disabled wealthy kids are out shopping for a doctor who will sign off that Larla is “disabled” and so needs extra time. Do you really think the Big 3 and magnet schools have a student body that is 20 or 30% disabled students? Of course not. There are a LOT of people who are gaming the system. But of course there are also many people who legitimately need accommodations.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I understand that accommodations should be made, but I do have a question on how they are structured. How are accommodations, specifically extra time, accurately calibrated to a student's need? For example, if all the students without accommodations in a class have difficulty finishing an exam on time or with no time to review answers but the students with accommodations have no such problems does that mean the amount of extra time they were given is too much? What if 50% of the class finishes the exam and 50% does not? How much extra time should the student receive in that instance? What ends up being fair to the student needing extra time but unfair to the other students in the class?
Anonymous wrote:I understand that accommodations should be made, but I do have a question on how they are structured. How are accommodations, specifically extra time, accurately calibrated to a student's need? For example, if all the students without accommodations in a class have difficulty finishing an exam on time or with no time to review answers but the students with accommodations have no such problems does that mean the amount of extra time they were given is too much? What if 50% of the class finishes the exam and 50% does not? How much extra time should the student receive in that instance? What ends up being fair to the student needing extra time but unfair to the other students in the class?