But I think that then it becomes a question of what is truly "fair" in terms of making the test
as accessible as it is to others who are non-disabled. It's not really barrier-free to anyone.
(To be clear, I also disagree with the idea that there is some "natural" score beyond which a student shouldn't get "extra" help. That is awfully close to "those gifted kids will be fine even without a teacher..."
)
It's not the "fault" of students with disabilities that College Board (and unethical students who just WANT extra time) that the accommodations offered aren't individual (and seriously-- how the heck is THAT legally okay??)...
But Polarbear, relatively FEW students are able to "demonstrate full knowledge" on the SAT, and for quite a percentage of them, that is a matter of not having sufficient
time.If nondisabled students don't have the opportunity to demonstrate full knowledge/ability, then is it really okay to grant that to their disabled peers? There is some pretty distressing evidence that the kids GETTING accommodations are, by and large, those from super-zips and from the highest SES within their regions. Also true that the reason for the crackdown on "diagnoses more recent than 3y" is because of parents gaming the system. So clearly it IS a pretty significant problem.
My beef with that isn't that those unethical practices hurt my kid-- but that they hurt ALL kids with disabilities. Same principle as unethical dog lovers who call their purse rats "service" animals and drag them into grocery stores and restaurants so that they can keep them everywhere... it makes things that much harder for people who
do need the supports. It's very arduous to get accommodations through ACT or ETS/College Board now, and I blame the specious and opportunistic with shady ethics for that. They are
probably presenting barriers that prevent kids with lower SES and parental commitment from gaining proper accommodations when they
are needed. That's sad.
Maybe the answer really
is to make it untimed.
