Oh, probably-- but the fact is that if granting accommodations leads to a different (non-Gaussian) distribution, then the asterisk actually belongs there. It's a matter of norming and statistics. The problem is that if they make it EASY to get accommodations (such that kids in the middle part of the distribution apply for and use them), then the unscrupulous at the higher end (who don't need them but will certainly 'take' what advantage they may) will flock in droves, which is what California suspected was happening there. That top/competitive group was quicker to take advantage than the people who actually NEEDED the accommodation down there in the middle. Unfortunate in the extreme, because there isn't an easy way to sort those two groups.
My statements are
not to be interpreted in any way that I think that kids shouldn't have accommodations which improve
performance...
they should, obviously. In Kai's case, for example, it is
blindingly clear that it's the right thing to do.
But-- those accommodations are WAY different than accommodations which grant basic
access to kids with disabling physical conditions. That's not really about elevating scores or not-- it's about "can this kid test or not?"
In the situation where it's about optimizing performance, then kids like my DD ought to be able to dictate under just what conditions they take the test-- because she KNOWS an unsafe environment when she enters it. She shouldn't have to spend those hours drawing off mental energy wondering if she's going to be safe enough for long enough to finish. THAT impairs her performance-- but there's no way that College Board listened to us about that. Or about drugs impairing cognitive performance, and our doc even included research studies to back both.
We'd love to have a way to mitigate those two factors, but we don't. So we
know that they depress her performance.
The other thing which is troubling about extra time is that it then raises questions about "how much additional time is merely
fair-- and how much is
advantage over non-disabled test-takers?" There's no clear answer there, because everyone's disability is somewhat unique. So for SOME kids with ADHD, who luck into a setting with very few distractions, have a great day, etc... that extra time is simply an
advantage. Of course, the answer is to just eliminate the timed part of things, right? Well, no, not really. Because part of the test IS about processing speed. Always has been. The reason that colleges look at these tests is that the nature of a collegiate environment is to place greatly increased demands on students in terms of rate of instruction and volume of output during that compressed timeframe.
Anyway. That's why I have somewhat mixed feelings about additional time as an accommodation. Mostly it's because there are unscrupulous people who are more than willing to do whatever it takes for their special snowflakes to show to best advantage... but also because I'm troubled by the fact that there is no real way to determine just HOW much more time is appropriate for any one individual, or if other accommodations might be better for that person-- such as MoN's child, who probably doesn't need extra time, but DOES need an alternative format.
