Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that kids should be able to get accommodations that they need. But it should be noted on the test that the student had an accommodation. There is a lot of data out there about how many wealthy families have gamed the system to get accommodations for their kids to get them extra time on standardized tests (and wealthy families are also much more likely to afford the evaluations that are required). If it was noted on the test that the student had an accommodation, this problem would pretty much disappear.

So punish the smart, hard-working kids because a few rich kids lie? Only the smart, ADHD kids benefit from the extra time anyway. A dumb rich kid isn't going to do any better with extra time than without. I'm sorry that your one-dimensional striving kid is jealous that a smart kid with ADHD got into a better school, but you sound like an idiot.

Woah, way to take it down and make this personal. Now I understand why people say this site is toxic. My kid is at an Ivy, but thank you for your kind thoughts. And no - it's not just the 'smart' kids who "benefit from extra time anyway". Time is a huge factor in these tests, particularly the ACT. If time wasn't a key element, then nobody would have a time restriction. So - given the designed constraint, the school should absolutely be made aware when the constraint is lifted. (I DO NOT agree with another poster who said there should be a medical explanation and link to the doctor). A simple denotation would work fine.

This discloses that the student has a disability. This is illegal and will never happen no matter how much you wish it so.

That is factually and legally incorrect. https://www.educationnext.org/disablingthesat/

"Historically, to comply with this requirement, the College Board and other testing companies have flagged results that were obtained under modified conditions such as extended time. This practice has long been considered legal under both case law and more than 25 years of guidance and rulings from the federal Office for Civil Rights. While the laws require reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals, they do not require fundamental alterations or the lowering of standards."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that kids should be able to get accommodations that they need. But it should be noted on the test that the student had an accommodation. There is a lot of data out there about how many wealthy families have gamed the system to get accommodations for their kids to get them extra time on standardized tests (and wealthy families are also much more likely to afford the evaluations that are required). If it was noted on the test that the student had an accommodation, this problem would pretty much disappear.

So punish the smart, hard-working kids because a few rich kids lie? Only the smart, ADHD kids benefit from the extra time anyway. A dumb rich kid isn't going to do any better with extra time than without. I'm sorry that your one-dimensional striving kid is jealous that a smart kid with ADHD got into a better school, but you sound like an idiot.

Woah, way to take it down and make this personal. Now I understand why people say this site is toxic. My kid is at an Ivy, but thank you for your kind thoughts. And no - it's not just the 'smart' kids who "benefit from extra time anyway". Time is a huge factor in these tests, particularly the ACT. If time wasn't a key element, then nobody would have a time restriction. So - given the designed constraint, the school should absolutely be made aware when the constraint is lifted. (I DO NOT agree with another poster who said there should be a medical explanation and link to the doctor). A simple denotation would work fine.

This discloses that the student has a disability. This is illegal and will never happen no matter how much you wish it so.

That is factually and legally incorrect. https://www.educationnext.org/disablingthesat/

"Historically, to comply with this requirement, the College Board and other testing companies have flagged results that were obtained under modified conditions such as extended time. This practice has long been considered legal under both case law and more than 25 years of guidance and rulings from the federal Office for Civil Rights. While the laws require reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals, they do not require fundamental alterations or the lowering of standards."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that kids should be able to get accommodations that they need. But it should be noted on the test that the student had an accommodation. There is a lot of data out there about how many wealthy families have gamed the system to get accommodations for their kids to get them extra time on standardized tests (and wealthy families are also much more likely to afford the evaluations that are required). If it was noted on the test that the student had an accommodation, this problem would pretty much disappear.

So punish the smart, hard-working kids because a few rich kids lie? Only the smart, ADHD kids benefit from the extra time anyway. A dumb rich kid isn't going to do any better with extra time than without. I'm sorry that your one-dimensional striving kid is jealous that a smart kid with ADHD got into a better school, but you sound like an idiot.

Woah, way to take it down and make this personal. Now I understand why people say this site is toxic. My kid is at an Ivy, but thank you for your kind thoughts. And no - it's not just the 'smart' kids who "benefit from extra time anyway". Time is a huge factor in these tests, particularly the ACT. If time wasn't a key element, then nobody would have a time restriction. So - given the designed constraint, the school should absolutely be made aware when the constraint is lifted. (I DO NOT agree with another poster who said there should be a medical explanation and link to the doctor). A simple denotation would work fine.

This discloses that the student has a disability. This is illegal and will never happen no matter how much you wish it so.

That is factually and legally incorrect. https://www.educationnext.org/disablingthesat/

"Historically, to comply with this requirement, the College Board and other testing companies have flagged results that were obtained under modified conditions such as extended time. This practice has long been considered legal under both case law and more than 25 years of guidance and rulings from the federal Office for Civil Rights. While the laws require reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals, they do not require fundamental alterations or the lowering of standards."

You probably are too dense to realize this, but you're quoting an op ed that is advocating taking away accommodations from people with disabilities as if it were fact. Sorry about the status of your reading comprehension.

You are a very angry individual, aren't you?

Angry at people who are borderline illiterate and try to pass off their ignorance as fact!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that kids should be able to get accommodations that they need. But it should be noted on the test that the student had an accommodation. There is a lot of data out there about how many wealthy families have gamed the system to get accommodations for their kids to get them extra time on standardized tests (and wealthy families are also much more likely to afford the evaluations that are required). If it was noted on the test that the student had an accommodation, this problem would pretty much disappear.

So punish the smart, hard-working kids because a few rich kids lie? Only the smart, ADHD kids benefit from the extra time anyway. A dumb rich kid isn't going to do any better with extra time than without. I'm sorry that your one-dimensional striving kid is jealous that a smart kid with ADHD got into a better school, but you sound like an idiot.

Woah, way to take it down and make this personal. Now I understand why people say this site is toxic. My kid is at an Ivy, but thank you for your kind thoughts. And no - it's not just the 'smart' kids who "benefit from extra time anyway". Time is a huge factor in these tests, particularly the ACT. If time wasn't a key element, then nobody would have a time restriction. So - given the designed constraint, the school should absolutely be made aware when the constraint is lifted. (I DO NOT agree with another poster who said there should be a medical explanation and link to the doctor). A simple denotation would work fine.

Thankfully your opinion doesn't matter. Kids with medical conditions do not need to make them public, and just because you have some mistaken sense that it's not fair that they get accommodations that are medically indicated does not make you correct or mean that you have an appropriate value system in place. I am glad we live in a world where blind students can use assistive technology like screen readers, where people with severe anxiety can take tests in quiet rooms if needed, and where students with documented processing disorders can get extra time.

Different poster weighing in here. This has nothing to do with 'fairness' or a 'value system'. This would not be an issue if every student was allowed to take an untimed test (an option which has been proposed). And it's a false equivalence for you to say that you're 'glad we live in a world where blind students can use assistive technology . . .' That isn't the issue here - no one is proposing that students who need extra time shouldn't get it. However, the key here is that this is a standardized test, and in that situation, colleges need to be able to judge the results through the lens of a set of standards. If one of those standards is lifted, they have a right to know. This is not 'unfair', illegal, or violation of any value system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that kids should be able to get accommodations that they need. But it should be noted on the test that the student had an accommodation. There is a lot of data out there about how many wealthy families have gamed the system to get accommodations for their kids to get them extra time on standardized tests (and wealthy families are also much more likely to afford the evaluations that are required). If it was noted on the test that the student had an accommodation, this problem would pretty much disappear.

So punish the smart, hard-working kids because a few rich kids lie? Only the smart, ADHD kids benefit from the extra time anyway. A dumb rich kid isn't going to do any better with extra time than without. I'm sorry that your one-dimensional striving kid is jealous that a smart kid with ADHD got into a better school, but you sound like an idiot.

Woah, way to take it down and make this personal. Now I understand why people say this site is toxic. My kid is at an Ivy, but thank you for your kind thoughts. And no - it's not just the 'smart' kids who "benefit from extra time anyway". Time is a huge factor in these tests, particularly the ACT. If time wasn't a key element, then nobody would have a time restriction. So - given the designed constraint, the school should absolutely be made aware when the constraint is lifted. (I DO NOT agree with another poster who said there should be a medical explanation and link to the doctor). A simple denotation would work fine.

This discloses that the student has a disability. This is illegal and will never happen no matter how much you wish it so.

That is factually and legally incorrect. https://www.educationnext.org/disablingthesat/

"Historically, to comply with this requirement, the College Board and other testing companies have flagged results that were obtained under modified conditions such as extended time. This practice has long been considered legal under both case law and more than 25 years of guidance and rulings from the federal Office for Civil Rights. While the laws require reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals, they do not require fundamental alterations or the lowering of standards."

You probably are too dense to realize this, but you're quoting an op ed that is advocating taking away accommodations from people with disabilities as if it were fact. Sorry about the status of your reading comprehension.

You are a very angry individual, aren't you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that kids should be able to get accommodations that they need. But it should be noted on the test that the student had an accommodation. There is a lot of data out there about how many wealthy families have gamed the system to get accommodations for their kids to get them extra time on standardized tests (and wealthy families are also much more likely to afford the evaluations that are required). If it was noted on the test that the student had an accommodation, this problem would pretty much disappear.

So punish the smart, hard-working kids because a few rich kids lie? Only the smart, ADHD kids benefit from the extra time anyway. A dumb rich kid isn't going to do any better with extra time than without. I'm sorry that your one-dimensional striving kid is jealous that a smart kid with ADHD got into a better school, but you sound like an idiot.

Woah, way to take it down and make this personal. Now I understand why people say this site is toxic. My kid is at an Ivy, but thank you for your kind thoughts. And no - it's not just the 'smart' kids who "benefit from extra time anyway". Time is a huge factor in these tests, particularly the ACT. If time wasn't a key element, then nobody would have a time restriction. So - given the designed constraint, the school should absolutely be made aware when the constraint is lifted. (I DO NOT agree with another poster who said there should be a medical explanation and link to the doctor). A simple denotation would work fine.

This discloses that the student has a disability. This is illegal and will never happen no matter how much you wish it so.

That is factually and legally incorrect. https://www.educationnext.org/disablingthesat/

"Historically, to comply with this requirement, the College Board and other testing companies have flagged results that were obtained under modified conditions such as extended time. This practice has long been considered legal under both case law and more than 25 years of guidance and rulings from the federal Office for Civil Rights. While the laws require reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals, they do not require fundamental alterations or the lowering of standards."

You probably are too dense to realize this, but you're quoting an op ed that is advocating taking away accommodations from people with disabilities as if it were fact. Sorry about the status of your reading comprehension.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that kids should be able to get accommodations that they need. But it should be noted on the test that the student had an accommodation. There is a lot of data out there about how many wealthy families have gamed the system to get accommodations for their kids to get them extra time on standardized tests (and wealthy families are also much more likely to afford the evaluations that are required). If it was noted on the test that the student had an accommodation, this problem would pretty much disappear.

So punish the smart, hard-working kids because a few rich kids lie? Only the smart, ADHD kids benefit from the extra time anyway. A dumb rich kid isn't going to do any better with extra time than without. I'm sorry that your one-dimensional striving kid is jealous that a smart kid with ADHD got into a better school, but you sound like an idiot.

Woah, way to take it down and make this personal. Now I understand why people say this site is toxic. My kid is at an Ivy, but thank you for your kind thoughts. And no - it's not just the 'smart' kids who "benefit from extra time anyway". Time is a huge factor in these tests, particularly the ACT. If time wasn't a key element, then nobody would have a time restriction. So - given the designed constraint, the school should absolutely be made aware when the constraint is lifted. (I DO NOT agree with another poster who said there should be a medical explanation and link to the doctor). A simple denotation would work fine.

Thankfully your opinion doesn't matter. Kids with medical conditions do not need to make them public, and just because you have some mistaken sense that it's not fair that they get accommodations that are medically indicated does not make you correct or mean that you have an appropriate value system in place. I am glad we live in a world where blind students can use assistive technology like screen readers, where people with severe anxiety can take tests in quiet rooms if needed, and where students with documented processing disorders can get extra time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that kids should be able to get accommodations that they need. But it should be noted on the test that the student had an accommodation. There is a lot of data out there about how many wealthy families have gamed the system to get accommodations for their kids to get them extra time on standardized tests (and wealthy families are also much more likely to afford the evaluations that are required). If it was noted on the test that the student had an accommodation, this problem would pretty much disappear.

So punish the smart, hard-working kids because a few rich kids lie? Only the smart, ADHD kids benefit from the extra time anyway. A dumb rich kid isn't going to do any better with extra time than without. I'm sorry that your one-dimensional striving kid is jealous that a smart kid with ADHD got into a better school, but you sound like an idiot.

Woah, way to take it down and make this personal. Now I understand why people say this site is toxic. My kid is at an Ivy, but thank you for your kind thoughts. And no - it's not just the 'smart' kids who "benefit from extra time anyway". Time is a huge factor in these tests, particularly the ACT. If time wasn't a key element, then nobody would have a time restriction. So - given the designed constraint, the school should absolutely be made aware when the constraint is lifted. (I DO NOT agree with another poster who said there should be a medical explanation and link to the doctor). A simple denotation would work fine.

This discloses that the student has a disability. This is illegal and will never happen no matter how much you wish it so.

That is factually and legally incorrect. https://www.educationnext.org/disablingthesat/

"Historically, to comply with this requirement, the College Board and other testing companies have flagged results that were obtained under modified conditions such as extended time. This practice has long been considered legal under both case law and more than 25 years of guidance and rulings from the federal Office for Civil Rights. While the laws require reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals, they do not require fundamental alterations or the lowering of standards."

Anonymous wrote:People spend $1000 to upgrade iPhones but won’t invest in education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that kids should be able to get accommodations that they need. But it should be noted on the test that the student had an accommodation. There is a lot of data out there about how many wealthy families have gamed the system to get accommodations for their kids to get them extra time on standardized tests (and wealthy families are also much more likely to afford the evaluations that are required). If it was noted on the test that the student had an accommodation, this problem would pretty much disappear.

So punish the smart, hard-working kids because a few rich kids lie? Only the smart, ADHD kids benefit from the extra time anyway. A dumb rich kid isn't going to do any better with extra time than without. I'm sorry that your one-dimensional striving kid is jealous that a smart kid with ADHD got into a better school, but you sound like an idiot.

Woah, way to take it down and make this personal. Now I understand why people say this site is toxic. My kid is at an Ivy, but thank you for your kind thoughts. And no - it's not just the 'smart' kids who "benefit from extra time anyway". Time is a huge factor in these tests, particularly the ACT. If time wasn't a key element, then nobody would have a time restriction. So - given the designed constraint, the school should absolutely be made aware when the constraint is lifted. (I DO NOT agree with another poster who said there should be a medical explanation and link to the doctor). A simple denotation would work fine.

This discloses that the student has a disability. This is illegal and will never happen no matter how much you wish it so.

Anonymous wrote:What needs to be standardized are grades and if you take an AP class, you must take the AP exam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that kids should be able to get accommodations that they need. But it should be noted on the test that the student had an accommodation. There is a lot of data out there about how many wealthy families have gamed the system to get accommodations for their kids to get them extra time on standardized tests (and wealthy families are also much more likely to afford the evaluations that are required). If it was noted on the test that the student had an accommodation, this problem would pretty much disappear.

So punish the smart, hard-working kids because a few rich kids lie? Only the smart, ADHD kids benefit from the extra time anyway. A dumb rich kid isn't going to do any better with extra time than without. I'm sorry that your one-dimensional striving kid is jealous that a smart kid with ADHD got into a better school, but you sound like an idiot.

Woah, way to take it down and make this personal. Now I understand why people say this site is toxic. My kid is at an Ivy, but thank you for your kind thoughts. And no - it's not just the 'smart' kids who "benefit from extra time anyway". Time is a huge factor in these tests, particularly the ACT. If time wasn't a key element, then nobody would have a time restriction. So - given the designed constraint, the school should absolutely be made aware when the constraint is lifted. (I DO NOT agree with another poster who said there should be a medical explanation and link to the doctor). A simple denotation would work fine.