Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish my grandfather and his platoon mates in WWII - you know, the men who defeated the Nazis - were around to hear this conversation. Do you think anyone on those beaches at Normandy was pulling aside their commanding officer to request accommodations? Did it matter if someone had "slow processing speed" or was "neurodivergent"? Not a frigging chance. The fate of Western civilization was hanging in the balance, every man was expected to pull his weight, and the standards applied equally to everyone. And yes, speed of decision making and execution was paramount and often meant the difference between life and death.

I'm not sure when or where we veered off course over the last 80 years.

If that's your concern, the Army doesn't take people who have diagnosed ADHD and take medicine for it. That doesn't mean a kid with ADHD can't succeed in college and become a medical researcher or an engineer.

Well, I think PP's point is back when there was a national draft vs. a volunteer army, nobody would have been denied for ADHD or equivalent diagnoses. You would have all been thrown together and someone with ADHD would be forced to figure out how to stay alive.

And this was the best case scenario we should all aspire to return to?

It's not like it was a choice. I mean, if the US entered World War III on the scale of what we mobilized for World War II, we would need another national draft.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish my grandfather and his platoon mates in WWII - you know, the men who defeated the Nazis - were around to hear this conversation. Do you think anyone on those beaches at Normandy was pulling aside their commanding officer to request accommodations? Did it matter if someone had "slow processing speed" or was "neurodivergent"? Not a frigging chance. The fate of Western civilization was hanging in the balance, every man was expected to pull his weight, and the standards applied equally to everyone. And yes, speed of decision making and execution was paramount and often meant the difference between life and death.

I'm not sure when or where we veered off course over the last 80 years.

If that's your concern, the Army doesn't take people who have diagnosed ADHD and take medicine for it. That doesn't mean a kid with ADHD can't succeed in college and become a medical researcher or an engineer.

Well, I think PP's point is back when there was a national draft vs. a volunteer army, nobody would have been denied for ADHD or equivalent diagnoses. You would have all been thrown together and someone with ADHD would be forced to figure out how to stay alive.

And this was the best case scenario we should all aspire to return to?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

You keep asking this as if to dare us to call your kid dumb. So, I will accommodate you and say yes, I think your kid is dumber than an otherwise identical kid that but with 50th percentile processing speed.

Why do you think that?

Because they are slow.

I say this as someone who went to a stop state flagship on a full scholarship because of her ACT score.

That makes no sense.

My kid gets very good grades and is an excellent writer, with accommodations. There are plenty of careers that are intellectually demanding but do not require a quick processing speed--for example, science research. Even in the medical profession, she could be a pathologist or a radiologist. One of the best brief writers I've ever worked with never argued cases (because he processed slowly) but those who argued them on his behalf were grateful, because they gave us a 40-meter head start in the 100-meter dash. The problem with *not* providing accommodations, like extra time, is that you are potentially missing people who are bright enough to succeed in intellectually challenging fields/positions that do not require speed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish my grandfather and his platoon mates in WWII - you know, the men who defeated the Nazis - were around to hear this conversation. Do you think anyone on those beaches at Normandy was pulling aside their commanding officer to request accommodations? Did it matter if someone had "slow processing speed" or was "neurodivergent"? Not a frigging chance. The fate of Western civilization was hanging in the balance, every man was expected to pull his weight, and the standards applied equally to everyone. And yes, speed of decision making and execution was paramount and often meant the difference between life and death.

I'm not sure when or where we veered off course over the last 80 years.

If that's your concern, the Army doesn't take people who have diagnosed ADHD and take medicine for it. That doesn't mean a kid with ADHD can't succeed in college and become a medical researcher or an engineer.

Well, I think PP's point is back when there was a national draft vs. a volunteer army, nobody would have been denied for ADHD or equivalent diagnoses. You would have all been thrown together and someone with ADHD would be forced to figure out how to stay alive.

Right figure out how to stay alive.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish my grandfather and his platoon mates in WWII - you know, the men who defeated the Nazis - were around to hear this conversation. Do you think anyone on those beaches at Normandy was pulling aside their commanding officer to request accommodations? Did it matter if someone had "slow processing speed" or was "neurodivergent"? Not a frigging chance. The fate of Western civilization was hanging in the balance, every man was expected to pull his weight, and the standards applied equally to everyone. And yes, speed of decision making and execution was paramount and often meant the difference between life and death.

I'm not sure when or where we veered off course over the last 80 years.

If that's your concern, the Army doesn't take people who have diagnosed ADHD and take medicine for it. That doesn't mean a kid with ADHD can't succeed in college and become a medical researcher or an engineer.

Well, I think PP's point is back when there was a national draft vs. a volunteer army, nobody would have been denied for ADHD or equivalent diagnoses. You would have all been thrown together and someone with ADHD would be forced to figure out how to stay alive.

Anonymous wrote:I wish my grandfather and his platoon mates in WWII - you know, the men who defeated the Nazis - were around to hear this conversation. Do you think anyone on those beaches at Normandy was pulling aside their commanding officer to request accommodations? Did it matter if someone had "slow processing speed" or was "neurodivergent"? Not a frigging chance. The fate of Western civilization was hanging in the balance, every man was expected to pull his weight, and the standards applied equally to everyone. And yes, speed of decision making and execution was paramount and often meant the difference between life and death.

I'm not sure when or where we veered off course over the last 80 years.

If that's your concern, the Army doesn't take people who have diagnosed ADHD and take medicine for it. That doesn't mean a kid with ADHD can't succeed in college and become a medical researcher or an engineer.

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.

I wish my grandfather and his platoon mates in WWII - you know, the men who defeated the Nazis - were around to hear this conversation. Do you think anyone on those beaches at Normandy was pulling aside their commanding officer to request accommodations? Did it matter if someone had "slow processing speed" or was "neurodivergent"? Not a frigging chance. The fate of Western civilization was hanging in the balance, every man was expected to pull his weight, and the standards applied equally to everyone. And yes, speed of decision making and execution was paramount and often meant the difference between life and death.

I'm not sure when or where we veered off course over the last 80 years.

Anonymous wrote:With regards to SAT and unlimited time, let's also not forget that many kids unfairly get accommodations on the ACT, a test for which the time element is a defining/crucial aspect.

The ACT is notoriously more difficult to get accommodations for than the SAT.

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.

Agreed. They wouldn't be as supportive of this if their kids attended a private school where everyone is plunking down $8K to get their neurotypical kids extra time for "anxiety." You know who has a lot of anxiety? Academically mediocre kids who are under pressure from their parents to get high grades at a school that is over their head so they can get into a top college.

With regards to SAT and unlimited time, let's also not forget that many kids unfairly get accommodations on the ACT, a test for which the time element is a defining/crucial aspect.

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.

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.

Ha. I agree though.

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.

I believe this to be true, but specifically what type of professions would someone with 13% processing speed be well suited for?

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.

But they got into law school and got through law school with accommodations. Lawyers charge by the hour. Will their firms bill them out at lower hourly rates?

Sorry, I know there’s a lot of chatter so it’s hard to hear. You don’t get extra time on assignments. If they actually manage to successfully complete law school and not fail because of the load, they can probably also manage being a lawyer.