Yeah.... but....
1995 study by Onwuegbuzie & Seaman, “The Effect of Time Constraints and Statistics Test Anxiety on Test Performance in a Statistics Course, concluded: “Both low- and high-anxious students performed better… under the untimed condition… However, the benefit of the untimed examination was greater for high-anxious students than for low-anxious students.”
Pearson's examination of Timed assessment--2003This demonstrates that procedures established by
Pearson over the past 80 years for setting time limits have allowed adequate time for non-disabled students to complete the test without undue strain or errors owing to time pressure. More
important, however, is the evidence that
the allowance of extended times accommodates
disabled students so that they may demonstr
ate what they have learned while not unfairly
inflating the scores of
non-disabled students
The tricky part is in the detail here-- HOW MUCH time? The problem is that the SAT
uses time as a pressor in testing. Once you do that, you are now in a situation in which allowing time as an ACCOMMODATION can be used as unfair advantage. (Note that I don't say "is" an unfair advantage, because clearly it isn't for people who truly have disabling conditions which REQUIRE more time... but that it CAN be an unfair advantage, because the "fair" amount of extra time is that which produces "normative" time pressure... and the accommodations are not set up individually that way.)
This is specific to the assessment instrument-- to determine what "adequate time" looks like, and then to decide whether you WANT to shift that time so that it becomes a selection factor in testing.Specifically (to the SAT, I mean):
Disabling the SATGuidelines for administering norm-referenced tests such as the SAT are laid out in professional technical standards that testing companies follow. The leading authority in this regard is the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing developed jointly by the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. On the issue of flagging, the most relevant standard reads:
When there is credible evidence of score comparability across regular and modified administrations, no flag should be attached to the score. When such evidence is lacking, specific information about the nature of the modification should be provided, if permitted by law, to assist test users properly to interpret and act on test scores.
In other words, the standards require test administrators to note when a test has been taken under modified conditions unless there is “credible evidence” that the scores of students who took the test under standard and modified conditions are comparable–that is, that the scores carry the same meaning and weight. 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.
Now, am I glad that my DD's SAT results are unflagged? You bet I am. But she also doesn't get any extra time, and you had better believe that she could get a 780-800 on every one of those sections every time if time were NOT a factor. Let me also note, here, that allowing a particular accommodation to be "chosen" by anyone, but noted as "modified" (as the author suggests as a solution to flagging) doesn't really solve the problem, either.
Notably, in the 2003 College Board study, Bridgeman and his associates acknowledged this reality, writing that if all students were given more time on the math portion of the SAT, “the pressure for students to get a sometimes questionable diagnosis in order to qualify for extra time would be substantially reduced.”
The rates at which students receive testing accommodations also vary dramatically by zip code, with well-to-do, empowered parents being able to pressure the system into giving their children extra support. Is it fair for children of the wealthy to receive accommodations without consequences while poor children with undiagnosed learning disabilities languish under the rigors of a timed SAT? The panel majority encouraged the College Board to reach out proactively to disadvantaged students in order to inform them of their right to request accommodations, but the decision to end flagging certainly wasn’t made contingent on its happening.
The Board’s decision to end flagging is likely to exacerbate these problems. Now that there is no consequence for taking the SAT with extra time, so-called diagnosis shopping will undoubtedly become even more common among the well heeled, who can afford the private psychologists and pricey lawyers. And what’s to stop them? School districts certainly don’t have any incentive to limit the number of students who take the SAT with extended time, since higher scores look good to parents, taxpayers, and real estate agents. Who will be the gatekeepers?
Moreover, speed, whatever the College Board’s assertions, is an important factor in the SAT. In fact, students report that the hardest thing about the SAT is the speed at which they need to work in order to answer questions accurately and still try to finish. ETS’s own research shows that students perform better when given extra time.
Yeah, this is kind of a sore spot with me.
No, not because I'm thinking that students with disabilities are "getting unfair advantage." I know that THAT group is not...
but I also know that the unscrupulous TigerParents out there have made it INCREDIBLY arduous and stressful to actually
get accommodations from College Board when they ARE needed. Which is what MoN was saying also, I think. I don't
blame them, though, for viewing application for extended time with a certain degree of cynicism...
It's a matter of volume. They KNOW that some of the students applying for extra time are just seeking competitive advantage, not "a level playing field." And really, when the time IS part of the test, then what does a level playing field even MEAN??
Right. Your options are: a) no extra time, b) time-and-a-half, or c) double time. That's it. Nondisabled students (and those who can't muster the considerable resources to apply successfully for accommodations) are stuck with A. On the other hand, students who could legitimately use, say.... 20% more time get... hmmm... to choose from three different but not fair options, one of which is unfairly disadvantaged... but the other two of which offer ADVANTAGE over non-disabled peers by providing testing time which is MORE generous than necessary.
KWIM?
Heaven help you if you need to test with accommodations NOT on the "menu." College Board simply hasn't got a clue WHAT to do with such students. Their answer instead is mostly to REJECT those applications for not choosing a "valid" (meaning proscribed) accommodation.
Are you sure you wouldn't like extra time?What? No! I just need to be seated in an accessible room and have extra time at breaks so that I can access the restroom.Well, that's not one of the options. Do you mean that you'd like individual testing?Aughhhhhhhh...While that is not a real conversation, it sure COULD be, given our experience. My DD's actual written accommodations from CB require us to negotiate what she
actually needs from the test site. Every.single.time. They don't even include the rather basic and obvious fact that she may NOT be seated for testing in a room that is used to prepare or consume food.
Gaaaaa!!!!
________________________________________
[/rant]
Ahem.
Yeah, I think that for most kids who qualify through talent searches, a few full-length practice tests to get used to the format and sheer stamina needed (at 8-14yo, that is DEFINITELY a factor with the SAT) are a good idea.
Beyond that, it's
prepping. I disagree with prepping. Others don't.
