OK, I knew I should never have commented...
Let's use 1800 or 2200, doesn't really matter. I noted that there is a gray area, and I think that is what others are commenting on. I also noted that true physical disabilities should be accommodated.
Let's take the example of my eldest. She could use a little extra time on science tests (as well as the science portion of the ACT). She asked a science teacher about getting extra time and was told she needed an IEP. So I checked her PSI on the WISC - not spectacular but 94th percentile. Once I told her that she realized she just needed to deal with it. There are others in our community that would have sought out an ADD diagnosis (because if you have enough money you can pay for it). That is unfair.
It becomes a gray area when extra time boosts already good scores. What if someone conducted a study with all kids who scored 2000, gave all of them extra time and found that almost all of them (even those without accommodations) boosted their score? I understand that we don't really know until someone conducts a study but my eldest knows she would have done better on the science portion of the ACT if she had more time. I think HK commented that her kid would have perfect/near perfect scores if she had more time. What if we found that scores of accommodated and non-accommodated rose a similar amount? What would that mean?
I still want someone to give my kids extra time to run to first or maybe they can lower the volleyball net because my kids are vertically challenged. OK, not really, but I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I have also heard of bad outcomes where the kid had a great score on the SAT with extra time (and they used that time). They get to Elite U and they need twice as long to complete assignments - and they are being set up for a tough ride in college.
