Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Twice Exceptional Seething at situation re: College Board + LEA

If you live in an area where there is a "testing center" then some of College Board's tests can be taken there-- under SOME testing requirements in terms of accommodations, that is.

It's just that if you need some accommodations, they can ONLY be taken "school based" and if you need that and you don't have a "home" school that is a testing site, then the onus is on YOU to find your kid a seat, and the catch is that no school is obligated to seat them.

Well, it all ties in nicely to my assertions that everyone in my town has met the helicopter parent from hell, though. This is someone who has obviously been highly sensitized in the past and has become nasty and defensive as a result.

I truly hope that we never, ever, ever have to deal with her after this, too.

Try to imagine a situation where she would need some help from you

For what it's worth, I think one could write a kick-ass college admission essay about discrimination in SAT accommodations.

LOL-- Elizabeth, my DD already wrote one of those in 8th grade re: the MANY, lifelong benefits conferred upon those who are eligible for military service, and 100% denied to anyone who is ineligible-- namely, highly capable persons who have disabling conditions. There's no other way to get some of those benefits, and they are substantial. She discovered that not all nations treat service this way, either.





I'm having the best luck imagining her being spanked in front of a parent audience-- with a rolled up copy of the full text of ADAA.

I'm not a very nice person, as it happens. I know this.

And DD's school wondered at our reluctance to have her sit for AP tests...

this-- THIS is why DD didn't participate in talent searches when she was 7-10 yo. It's because it is so crazy-hard to get accommodations that make it reasonably safe for her to test.

As self-appointed defender of standardized tests, let me point out that making it difficult to get accommodations may be part of an unstated policy to reduce fraud, which is a problem for a high-stakes test. Disability advocates forced the College Board to stop flagging tests given under special circumstances. People were worried in 2002 that this change encourages the unscrupulous, as the article below discusses.

I know this does not apply to HK and hope she is able to iron out the problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/15/us/abuse-feared-as-sat-test-changes-disability-policy.html
Abuse Feared as SAT Test Changes Disability Policy
By TAMAR LEWIN
New York Times
Published: July 15, 2002
The College Board has agreed to stop flagging the scores of disabled students who take the SAT under special conditions, such as extra time, in a legal settlement that could send tremors through the college admissions process.

About 2 percent of the two million high school students who take SAT's each year get some accommodations -- almost always including extra time -- because of their documented disabilities. To make sure college admission boards know this, the College Board marks these tests with a notation that says, ''Scores Obtained Under Special Conditions.''

But after September 2003, the College Board will no longer flag the disabled students' scores, a practice that advocates for the disabled have long denounced as stigmatizing and discriminatory. Without the notations, colleges will now have no way of knowing if an applicant took the test under normal conditions, or used a computer, worked in a separate quiet room, and had four and a half hours for the three-hour test.


High school guidance counselors said the elimination of flagging could set off a wave of new applications for accommodations, including some from students without real disabilities.

Although the settlement arose from litigation by a man with a physical disability, most of those who are accommodated have attention deficit problems or learning disabilities like dyslexia, a reading disorder.

''It's the right thing to do, but it's going to have very negative ramifications,'' said Brad MacGowan, a guidance counselor at Newton North High School, in an affluent suburb of Boston. ''In a perfect world, if students really need extended time to do as well as they can on a test, they should not have it flagged. But it's that flag, that asterisk, that helps cut down on abuse. This will open the floodgates to families that think they can beat the system by buying a diagnosis, and getting their kid extra time.''

Oh man, those unscrupulous parents ruin things for everyone, most of all, their own children.

Bostonian is absolutely correct-- and even disability advocates have expressed some concern over the time issue-- because that DOES fundamentally alter the assessment, and it does so even for those students who are non-disabled, making it very much unlike other accommodations. That is, this particular accommodation is one that MOST non-disabled students would be quite happy to have, and it would improve their scores in at least some subsections. The "timed" aspect of the test IS part of the test. I have no problem with offering the necessary time accommodation to students who really need it, of course-- slow processing speeds, dysgraphia, etc. all make that necessary to level the playing field. But it does open the door for fraudulent application for accommodations, too, and it probably DOES mean that some kids are getting mommy and daddy to purchase them accommodations.

The thing is, though... the crazy-making thing, I mean, is that they make the process of getting approval so unbelievably hard for everyone ELSE. That one makes no sense whatsoever.

There is NO WAY that "_______-- control of the environment to avoid triggering _______ (medical condition)" is any kind of advantage to non-disabled test-takers. Reducing distractions for an ADD student hardly seems like something every test-taker would even CARE about.

Seriously. That's like arguing that braille is an "unfair advantage" and that those kids wanting it are probably faking it to gain unfair advantage.

I understand the additional scrutiny re: extra time, particularly in people who have a very recent diagnosis. That's just plain suspicious, and I think everyone can see why.

But to say that a kid with dysgraphia since school entry wanting a computer for the essay is "unfair" or "suspect" is just insane.

And for people with medically-based disabling conditions, the entire system is convoluted and nonsensical in the extreme. MOST of those applications could be rubber-stamped, the provisions asked make so much sense and offer no possible, conceivable advantage to a non-disabled student.

So much of the documentation requested is plainly "does not apply" to anyone without a LD diagnosis. What, pray tell, is a neuropsych evaluation supposed to offer in determining which accommodations a student with cerebral palsy, severe RA, or active lupus "really needs" in order to take an AP test, anyway?

Oh, right-- they don't.

The most aggravating thing of all is that you ask for what YOU NEED at your peril if you are not applying because of LD (or something related) and asking for extra time.

You'd better make sure that you use the phrases that they recognize, because the default answer is "NO." Anything off the 'menu?' No again.

And really, again, this makes NO sense. A child with debilitating migraines triggered by fluorescent lighting SHOULD be able to specify "test environment must use natural or incandescent lighting sources only" right?

Not so. That child needs to request the same thing that mine does. "Breaks as needed." You know, to manage the condition.

It has NOTHING to do with the provisions written into a child's IEP or 504 plan. College Board states openly that they feel that they are under ZERO obligation to honor those provisions, and completely free to determine which of them are "really" necessary. Without any real appeal process to speak of, I might add.

You can always reapply with new data and supporting documentation, of course.

We dotted every i and scrupulously followed their instructions to the letter in every way that we possibly could-- and were STILL denied "one on one testing" as an accommodation. Even though we made it clear that ANY person in that testing room may pose a risk of fatality-- within a few minutes-- to my daughter, and documented her sensitivity and medical history to support that assertion. The school backed us (what about homeschooled students like my dd?? Good lord.) our specialist physician backed us (and he's nationally known). And we still were told that we were asking for what she didn't really need.

It's mind boggling.

It's been a FLOOD of 'extra time' requests since that time, too.

Estimates there are not easy to come by, but the last ones that I saw were from 2007 or 2006 and suggested that there had been a 75% increase in the numbers of students testing with extra time.

How much of that is legitimate is anyone's guess-- but the fact that College Board is estimated to only approve about half (at most) of applicants for SSD accommodations probably says something.

The VAST majority of applicants are seeking extra time.

Extended Time and other Accommodations on the SAT and ACT
More on this particular topic:


and tellingly, why the turnaround--




This seems pretty fair, at least to me. That is, if you're unimpaired relative to your peers (and hey, that IS the catch if you're 2e, right?) then you probably don't strictly NEED accommodations. But the problem is when you try to apply this standard to things which are episodic and life-threatening-- that is, medical conditions which produce rapid, profound impairment unexpectedly.

Because when the condition isn't ACTIVE, there is no functional impairment. And when it is, then survival and treatment is all that matters. It's difficult that College Board has placed the two things in the same 'hopper' for evaluation. Because really, a board which is intended to be expert at parsing accommodations for LD can't possibly be competent to do so for complex medical management cases as well. And the variation in severity in things like lupus, responses to chemotherapy agents, food allergy, diabetes, seizure disorders, etc. means that one-size-fits-most winds up being suitable for only a tiny fraction of those who have needs that are non-negotiable.