<p>There was an interesting presentation on ABC News Nightline tonight with regard to the “rich-kids loophole” and “gaming the system”. <a href=“Does Loophole Give Rich Kids More Time on SAT? - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1787712&page=1</a></p>
<p>And it took Nightline YEARS to uncover this “secret?”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.collegeconfidential.com/discus/messages/69/66919.html#POST552601[/url]”>http://www.collegeconfidential.com/discus/messages/69/66919.html#POST552601</a></p>
<p>Xiggi,
Respectfully, you are asking the wrong question. The correct one is:</p>
<p>When will the mainstream media stop reporting superficially (inaccurately)? I mean, they took “years” to uncover <em>lies</em>, Xiggi. How many centuries will it take for them to uncover <em>truth</em>?</p>
<p>Once again, this is another distortion of another misunderstood topic, by the appopriately named alphabet channel. (Arrested development, anyone?) Yes, there are abuses of the system. One could argue, even, that CB’s hardball, hardcore policy toward accommodation has been a response to such supposed abuses…
UNTIL YOU GET TO PAGE TWO OF THE ARTICLE AND YOU READ THAT THEY BELIEVE <em>2%</em> OF THE STUDENT POPULATION HAS A JUSTIFIABLE NEED FOR TIME ACCOMMODATION. WRONG!
That is a totally unsupportable percentage. No WONDER some of us are having huge problems with CB. Every professional educator that I respect in the field, including every knowledgeable learning specialist, knows that this percentage is wrong & that CB is IGNORANT when it comes to the realities & the manifestations of non-posed, verifiable, manifested LD.</p>
<p>The sad thing is that many true LD’ers are anything but rich. Some of us are having to pay out of pocket for just legally mandated testing for our students.</p>
<p>Thank you, ABC, for contributing to the misinformation & mythology & for further jeopardizing the possibilities for NON-rich kids to get the justified accommodation that they need. Shame on you. You are neither “investigative” nor “journalistic.”</p>
<p>One last time, parents – & everyone on this forum not aware of this. Please go to some of the other forums, like Admissions, maybe even Search. There are discussions there of a couple of months ago on the reality of SAT accommodation. Please show me a <em>TRUE</em> LD’er with justified accommodation who scores impressively with accommodation. Ain’t going to happen. On the old scale, they might have gone from 800 without acc. to 1100 with, IF that. I am not exaggerating those numbers. And 1100 without athletic recruitment or celebrity would get them into HYP? Ask yourself if even a 9-yr old believes that – unless the 9-yr old is still studying the alphabet, carefully.</p>
<p>CB admits in this article that an acc. genuine LD’er will show little or no improvement in a score. But, if rich parents are succeeding in scamming CB with the help of (unethical) “professionals”, then CB is ignorant on 2 fronts. CB manages to simultaneously over-serve & under-serve. Pathetic. </p>
<p>My goodness, how stupid is the media? And the salaries they make? I went into the WRONG profession. Wow. All that money, for so few brain cells. Actually, the truth is probably that ABC & CB are – as their abbreviations reveal – sharing those precious few brain cells.</p>
<p>Perhaps the schools mentioned in the ABC video report with 46% of their students requiring extra time for SAT testing are the ones which raised the flag? Assuming, of course, that these schools are not specifically for special needs students…</p>
<p>Epiphany-
I am sorry, but I can’t really follow your argument. Are you saying that you think a 2% estimate of LD in the population of students taking the SAT is high? I don’t have the numbers in front of me , but I believe a 2% estimate would actually be on the low side. And your “example” of someone going from an 800 to an 1100 on the old SAT- I assume you are making those numbers up for sake of argument. You say you aren’t exaggerating, but if someone scores that low on the old SAT (800) statistics alone (regression to the mean) suget that if they took it again their score would go up just by test-retest variability alone. Could you rephrase your argument? I can’t follow it. Sorry.</p>
<p>Personally, I have always felt that College Board doesn’t need to so severely limit the time for ANYBODY to take their tests. If more time is given for everybody, then “rich kids” can’t have this advantage. </p>
<p>There are many ways to give more time without adding hours and hours. </p>
<p>One idea to give a bit more time is by “combining sections” (such as reading and math) and adding, say, 10 minutes to the original total of 50 minutes. THat way, if one is strong in math and can do those problems quickly (say, in 25 minutes), but weaker in reading, the student will have more time (35 minutes) for reading (an extra 10 minutes to the original format). </p>
<p>So… instead of giving 25 minutes for each section, combine 2 different types of sections and give 60 (or even 70) minutes.</p>
<p>Also, I would suggest a longer “snack break”. Give the kids time to “rest up” a bit and even eat a meal.</p>
<p>It is interesting that we constatnly focus on the College Board. What about the ACT? My understanding is that the ACT test is easier but more time constrained (observation from my son who took the test).</p>
<p>I have heard parents talk about this issue and it is real. It is appropriate for real LD students to receive accomodations. However, there is a tendancy of some to use those accomodations as loop holes. It appears that the CB needs to be more vigilant.</p>
<p>Does anyone know the statistics for accomodations on the ACT? What is their policy or procedure?</p>
<p>jlauer-
What a great idea! But will CB do anything that actually makes sense? (oops, no offense to you CB employees out there). CB and ETS do so much research (with the current format) on each of the sections to determine what percentage of kids get certain questions right/wrong etc., I don’t know if changing the administration would ever be anything they’d consider. It s a shame. Its a great idea. Let kids use their time as they need it. If a math whiz can finish the math section 5’ earlier, why shouldn’t he/she be able to use that time on the critical reading section? Makes sense to me.</p>
<p>Collegeboard is carefully reviewing all applications for accomodations, and it is now extremely hard to get them. Having the history of LD with supportive data throughout ones’ academic career is very important. You have to qualify for accomodations in your home school, have gotton accomodations and USED the accomodations in your school for at least 4 mos before CB will even consider looking at your request. They are not accepting the “oh gee I just found out in 10th grade that I am LD”. When a kid is evaluated, the data is the data. If the data doesnt show evidence of a disability, then the kid isn’t going to qualify for it. It is a shame that there are some bad apples out there who will “sell” disability evals, but CB knows who they are and won’t fall for that. One recent eval alone is unlikely to get a kid accomodations of any sort, unless the kid is clearly severly dyslexic or something. And it is certainly unlikely that this would just surface in 10th grade (not impossible, but unlikely). </p>
<p>And as for the statistics, about 6-10% of students have some sort of learning disability. If the “rich kids” get diagnosed more, it may simply be that the parents have better access to their healthcare services. The school psychologists do not “diagnose” or “treat”. They serve as “gatekeepers”, evaluating kids to see if they qualify for services. However, CB seems to be accepting of the school psychologists findings. Again, the kids have to qualfiy for services and/or accomodations and use them before CB will really take a closer look at requests for nonstandardized testing.</p>
<p>Hmm, is The College Board really at fault here? The explosion of requests for extra time can be tracked DIRECTLY to the lifting of the flagging. This only happen after a lawsuit and the lobbying by the ADA. </p>
<p>The saddest part of this is that students who are suffering from real disabilities are being painted with the same brush as the legion of dishonest familes who exploit this loophole cynically.</p>
<p>Extending the time to take the SAT to students with fake disabilities renders the test entirely trivial. The difficulty of the test is not based on the lack of knowledge of students but on their ability to recall that knowledge under the pressure of time. In the same vein, extending the test by a mere minutes would distort the historical integrity of the test and its important equating process.</p>
<p>Funny because my son qualifies for the extended time, but refuses to use it. It drives me crazy that he wont but he feels that it would be unfair.</p>
<p><<< extending the test by a mere minutes would distort the historical integrity of the test and its important equating process.>>></p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>The “historical integrity of the test” has long been gone. The test and scoring methodology have been changed/altered a few times. Things have been added and things have been removed. Therefore, adding some time (for everybody) will be just one more change. Change for the “sake of change” is not good. Change to make something better (or more fair or more reasonable) is good.</p>
<p>The ACT follows the ADA criteria for the definition of a disability. in general this means:
“For an individual to qualify for accommodations as a person with a disability, documentation must indicate that there is a functional impairment of a degree that would not be experienced by the average person and that an attempt at compensation has been made. The average person standard does not mean the average university student, but the average person in the normative population. For example, a person who has excellent academic skills but is slower in processing some types of information, a common feature of a learning disability, would qualify for extra time in specific situations if it is shown that his/her processing speed falls below that of the average person. Specific norm-referenced and standardized measures are used to compare an individuals speed of processing with a norm group.” (this is from Emory U’s Disability website).</p>
<p>In my interpretation of this, to be found to have a disability under ADA, you have to show a functional impairment below that of the “average person”. When converted to numbers, “average” means one standard deviation from the norm (85-115, with 100 being “average”), so it may be very hard to show deficits below that standard deviation (below 85) in kids taking the ACT. It is a little unclear if CB is using the ADA criteria or is still willing to look at discrepancy scores (significant discrepancies between potential and performance). You used to be able to show that if a student had high scores, on, for example, their Verbal IQ or verbal reasoning, but had a significanlty eg 1.5 Standard deviation) lower score on measures of written output, processing speet, fine motor dexterity, etc, then you could see that the students potential was being significantly hampered by their limitations, affecting their performance. (Thus is an exapmple, not to be taken as dictum).</p>
<p>At any rate, it is all a very different world out there now, since the removal of the * to indicate nonstandardized testing. The intent was not to stigmatize the LD students who had a nonstandard administration of the test. Unfortunately, the effect has been that people are trying to get every edge possible. I don’t fault the ADA or the LD associations for this. This is a societal problem.</p>
<p>JLauer, that is not correct. Despite the changes and recentering, the test is still equated to the 1946 version. </p>
<p>For the record, adding more time would NOT be a positive change. On the other hand, rearranging the way the SAT and SAT ST are administered should be on the priority agenda of TCB. The SAT should be offered in a format similar to the AP and split over two days. If TCB imposes the PSAT to high schools, a better treatment should be reserved to the SAT. In fact, the AP SHOULD be moved to optional dates and replace the SAT schedule. The fact that HS have to dedicate two weeks to satisfy TCB’s AP boondogle but have to accept the relegation of the SAT and SAT Subject tests to a Saturday/Sunday only affair is easily the most egregious behavior of the Princeton boys.</p>
<p>xiggi-
Could you give some concrete examples of what you are suggesting?</p>
<p>“xiggi-
Could you give some concrete examples of what you are suggesting?”</p>
<p>About changing the schedules of AP and SAT? Pretty simple, I would have the SAT offered only twice a year. Once in May and once more at the end of summer -even if that forces schools to start a bit before Labor Day. After all, if there is PLENTY of money to pay Pearson, there ought to some left to compensate the proctors and schools for the expenses. Unless, it is really that hard to expect educators to spend a bit of their precious summers.</p>
<p>Some -ir not all- of the APs should be the tests moved to the 8AM torture time slots on multiple saturdays. </p>
<p>I posted other thoughts on this in past threads.</p>
<p>Snack/stretch break would be helpful for everyone. </p>
<p>I agree that the ACT is more time-constrained. Less math-oriented, so depending where a kid’s strength is (reading vs. math), ACT could seem easier or harder. There has to be an upper end, though, to give top scorers room to prove how much more they can do in that time than the average student. ACT can be frustrating in that most people probably don’t finish the test, but there are some that could have scored a 37 or 40 if more questions were added. I never heard of SAT accommodations except on CC–someone with sloppy handwriting was advised to “get a diagnosis.” If a kid is getting 700-800 SAT scores with accommodations, I’d say that kid doesn’t need accommodations. Some of these parents probably need a diagnosis</p>
<p>OTOH, if the point of the test is to see if a person can read, comprehend, and answer questions quickly and accurately, doesn’t a “need for accommodations” show that this person, in reality, CAN’T do the task? I have mixed feelings about this. Will professors make allowances for lesser performance? Will future employers accept excuses-- how much assistance will they provide when they want a job done quickly? Don’t accomodations sometimes hurt people by giving a false proof (higher test score) that they “can do well” at something they really CAN’T do that well? And if they don’t have to say they had accommodations, (not sure if they do) then aren’t the schools that accept them being fooled? I’m all for everyone being able to reach his/her potential, but not everyone’s talents are in academics. Not every student is “college bound.” (Can the scrawny uncoordinated kid get on the football team with “accomodations” because of his “handicap?” Can a shy/anxious person get extra points in public speaking class because of her “handicap?”) Can’t parents just say, “my kid isn’t good at X” --everyone has strengths and weaknesses–instead of diagnosing, asking for accomodations? Are we defining everything our kid struggles with, or keeps our kid out of the top ranks–even though it is within the “normal” range–as a “disability?” (God forbid that my kid should be below average in anything!) I think it would be best for most people (LD,ADD–I don’t mean blind or severely physically hadicapped) to take the test under the same conditions, and the handicap could be explained in a separate letter with the application. Not all schools require the SAT, anyway, so there are still plenty of options for people who don’t test well.</p>
<p>It’s sad that legitimate disabilities are now suspect. I always assumed this type of student would be struggling just to get admitted to a state university, but I personally know a supposedly LD student (rich, of course) who got into Stanford thanks to the extra time.
xiggi, I definitely agree that the new longer SAT should be given on two days. And boongoggle is an appropriate term for the APs for sure.</p>
<p>Fact is, documenting slow processing speed is easier than one may think. And there are more than a few unethical psychologists out there. Fact is, lots of kids get the extra time loophole because of their parents’ purchasing a service, i.e. an evaluation, which would point to need for extra time. Clearly, there are those who need extra time, but I would bet it is only a percentage of those allowed this accommodation by the CB.</p>
<p>my oldest daughter has a learning disability actually several dyscalculia and ADD are the most marked.
in evaluating LDs in depth pyschologial evaluation is needed-
when you look at the seperate tests- some she was way, way above her age- but when you look at other tests she was far below.
This is an indication of a learning disbility- where there is great disparity among the different subcategories-
Her overall iq is 160, but unless she has accomodations, she is often not able to adaquately use her strengths because she is hampered by her weaknesses.</p>
<p>Would we tell somone like Stephen Hawking that “sorry, you can’t use your speech synthesizer any more- because those that don’t need it, feel that it is an unfair advantage for you to use it”. Of course not, and what a shame if we did.
In college my daughter has had untimed tests, open book unproctored tests, and able to take as much time as she needs to finish a project.</p>
<p>IN the workplace she will be able to select a job that suits her special strengths and allows for her weaknesses-</p>
<p>taking an extended time SAT test allowed for her increased processing speed needs-And it was noted on her scores that she had accomodations.</p>
<p>I think the problems lie in that currently SAT tests do not note accomodations and so those don’t need them, don’t see any disadvantage to having extended time.
That could easily be changed back by the college board
so why don’t they?</p>
<p>This recent thread illustrates the difficulties some parents are having with the college board
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=149427[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=149427</a></p>
<p>Why isn’t (insert name of elite college) complaining? They think they are accepting kids who are very skillful at selecting correct answers and filling in circles with #2 pencil under pressure, but instead they are duped into accepting kids that can only select the correct answer if given time to think it over, and also have extra time to fill in the little circles. Seems like it would have a major impact on the in-class performance of their student body. Now we know those (elite college) students aren’t all they are cracked up to be.</p>
<p>Whoops! Never mind! I forgot the basic premise of the article. Elite college doesn’t mind, because all of these under qualified students are rich. (Changing school name so we don’t start a Harvard bashing thread)</p>