The Test From Hell

Parents Forum
81

<p>“From my vantage point, I would like to believe that, if the SAT was really as horrendous as presented herein, it should be a cinch for someone to develop a better mousetrap.”</p>

<p>It’s not that simple, xiggi. I consider CB somewhat of an Immoveable Object supporting the laws of physics. It’s a complex organization now, with much commercialism invested in the test itself. </p>

<p>calmom, loved your first paragraph in your recent post and agree with it wholeheartedly.</p>

<p>mathmom, I was thinking of that very golf-cart case when the issue of golf & disability came up. It was decided in favor of the golfer who was physically disabled & would not be able to play the game without the cart to transport him.</p>

<p>I know that calmom was just throwing out the computer option. It’s an o.k option as a concept that I would be open to, but just understand that the progressive format of a test (e.g., GRE) can be a disaster when it severely punishes the brightest testers. For the bright students not only does it present hard problems extremely early (eliminating permanently all intro or easier problems in that sitting), but it ends up narrowing the test into only a couple of (the most difficult) categories of problems. Thus, whole sections just disappear if you answer well early on. The net result is that a progressive computerized test can work <em>against</em> a capable student (even with no LD) artificially & inaccurately. I would have to see the design of one; so far I have not liked the programs I have seen.</p>

<p>I agree with an earlier post, perhaps by mathmom, suggesting unlimited time for all test takers. I have absolutely no problem with that. “Unlimited” (or quite extended) for everybody. I think that is fair for all abilities of students.</p>

82

<p>epiphany - you never answered my question - would you be willing to go back to the system where SAT scores are flagged and accommodations noted when utilized?</p>

83

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Great … could someone then explain what is quiz show level performance or quiz show knowledge? </p>

<p>What would the test look like? Is the test based on the quiz show “Jeopardy” or “Let’s Make A Deal.” Humm, there is life after all for the The Monty Hall Problem.</p>

84

<p>

</p>

<p>Unlimited time for everyone will NEVER be an option. Time is a critical component of standardized tests. There is nothing fair about trivializing a test for everyone - unless you live on the shores of Lake Wobegon.</p>

85

<p>xiggi, eliminating or enlarging (for all, equally) the time frame does not necessarily “trivialize” the test. Other options have been suggested on this thread & on others. There are ways on paper to make it progressively difficult, to consider optional timed sections, etc. The main focus of most college tests is not speed per se.</p>

<p>rm, I tired right now, but preliminarily I would not have a problem with flagging <em>if</em> there is a parallel flag for any student who is accommodated <em>only</em> on the SAT (or ACT) & never in class, should that student care to indicate that. LD’ers who are achieving remarkably competitively in h.school, in rigorous programs, & without accommodation should have the opportunity to indicate that rather than it be assumed necessarily that he or she must always be accommodated. That can make a tremendous difference in college admissions. As it is now, it would be reasonable for a college to assume that an accommodation on an SAT means an accommodation in class, because CB has stated one to be predicated on the other.</p>

<p>Yet this ^ requires CB to alter its rules. You see, what some posters here do not understand is that to be aware of the differences between the SAT and actual academic tests does not make one accommodation-crazy. I know that there are some varieties of LD which call for timing and/or other kinds of accommodation for all testing. But as some hae said, there are varieties of needs. There are students who compensate well, or sufficiently, in classroom settings with whatever processing challenges they have, but whose disability radically obstructs their performance on the SAT. These students have the same finite time frames (typically 1-2 hours) on high school final exams that others do, yet often graduate with 4.2 weighted GPA’s, over students with zero LD, btw.</p>

<p>So if CB gets to flag "me’ that I’m accommodated on the SAT, I get to flag myself that I’m accommodated nowhere else, if that’s true. And I get to have that officially stated by the high school if I choose to.</p>

<p>More tomorrow. Way too tired.</p>

86

<p>In all the posts of this last page, I find it curious that no one commented on Anitaw’s excellent post one page back, about the intern with processing and organizational problems who simply could not make it.</p>

<p>Perhaps we are talking apples and oranges here. </p>

<p>Perhaps it is the degree of variation that we are quibbling about, unknowingly. Sure, there are some students, who with extra time, can perform as well as their peers, and perhaps that is all they need to be successful, and their success will translate into the work world as well.</p>

<p>But I also see what Anitaw describes, and that is the student who has been accommodated all through high school and college, and cannot manage the demands of certain careers or jobs, despite high grade point averages. For some of these students, the fall comes earlier, at college, even if they had been successful high school students with high GPAs, and accommodations on the SAT that allowed them to be admitted. Sometimes the demands of college, with its requirements for organization, efficiency, etc. are simply too much. Sometimes, the rubber doesn’t hit the road until the demands of the working world, at least in certain jobs, become overwhelming.</p>

<p>If a student needs extra time, only on the SAT, and the colleges are notified, in order to be successful, I don’t see the problem at all.</p>

<p>The problem is that accommodations are not always available in the real world. Many jobs require people to finish tasks in a timely manner. For some students, selecting careers that better fit their learning styles and preferences, will preclude some of the issues that Anita described. But not all. </p>

<p>I think her story is heartbreaking, but not as unusual as all that, since I have witnessed similar stories over the years, but not necessarily with students who made it through med school. </p>

<p>I guess the point is that accommodations alone, aren’t enough for some children, and the idea that everyone can do anything he sets his mind to, is a false promise. I know a woman with a Down Syndrome child and professionals, in their attemts to be encouraging, have told her that DS kids go to college now (never mind that this child still can’t read in late elementary school). This poor mother is filled with such false hope.</p>

<p>Well meaning professionals make promises to parents that over time seem empty and hollow, because they cannot possibly be realized. We are not all equally capable, and modern edcuation has sold the public a bill of goods in promising that with enough “help”, accommodations, and leveling of the playing field, everyone can achieve similarly. It simply isn’t true.</p>

87

<p>

</p>

<p>My son with AS needs both extended time AND a computer (among other accommodations). Students with AS often have other issues besides lack of social skills. There is a cluster of deficits/issues which is present in students with AS.</p>

88

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not just test prep, though. What about kids that have others write/edit their college application essays? I remember one poster here saying that a private school near him had a committee of 10 (?) teachers who looked over each student’s essays. And what about the ones who have to hire others to “package” themselves to look attractive to colleges? Do the students who get these levels of assistance belong at certain very select, very elite colleges?</p>

89

<p>Allmusic:</p>

<p>I did not comment on Anitaw’s example because it seemed to me too extreme a case. Obviously, when time is of the essence, someone who needs time accommodation will not be suitable. But not all branches of medicine are so time-sensitive. When I googled blind physicians, there were links that brought up cases of psychiatrists and others. Not all individuals who need accommodation on tests will choose to go into professions where accommodations are not possible. But it is not so different from an individual deciding that his short stature would put him at a disadvantage playing basketball.
I would have thought that mathematicians need to be able to write down their equations; yet. there are blind mathematicians who can dictate to others what they “see in their heads.” I have no idea how blind students did on the SAT-math; I presume they needed to pass the SAT to be able to attend college.</p>

90

<p>

</p>

<p>LOL. My S’s biggest struggle in math was showing his work; he always got points deducted! S has Aspergers and he processes information, and in particular, math problems, so differently from “normal” people that it is very difficult for him to show how he got to his solutions. He can do the work faster and more accurately in his head than on paper. Students with disabilities that do well in school often learn to compensate for their weaknesses in other ways–ways that cannot accurately be measured or reflected by standardized tests; and for many of them, their need for extended time is sometimes due, not to the fact that they are slower than the norm, but that they process information differently and so only appear slower when they are asked to perform in the same manner as the norm (which is pretty much always given our current education and testing methods).</p>

91

<p>

</p>

<p>The author of this statement obviously does not know anything about very gifted kids, or the literature surrounding them.</p>

<p>First of all, there are different levels of giftedness, often defined based on IQ levels (whatever IQ measures!) but more accurately related to learning style. Essentially, as kids move up the scale, so to speak, they learn both faster and in a more parallel fashion. As for outcome, that varies widely, (so what’s new?) and not based just on the school environment. You can look at Julian Stanley’s work or the work of the Belin-Blank center in Iowa for more information.</p>

<p>While conventional lore strongly believes in “compensating balances”, where a talent in one area is offset by a deficit in another, such as the brilliant math kid who trips over himself, real life is not like that. Research has consistently shown that gifted, through the range (even the profoundly gifted) are quite normal in all respects, at least as normal as peers. In other words, some gifted have problems and deficits, but no more frequently than their normal peers. In fact, more gifted are well adjusted, are leaders, have wide circles of friends and are strong in multiple areas than nongifted.</p>

<p>Enough on that.</p>

<p>Again, what troubles me here is that the proponents of accomodation have not stated one thing that sets apart THEIR kids from all those that just happen to be average kids who would benefit from more time on exams and such. “knowing” that a kid could do better with help is trivial. That’s true for just about everyone. Having a high IQ and not doing well in the classroom can say as much about motivation (or dozens of other things, including the IQ test) as about having a “problem”.</p>

<p>So yes, I sympatize with those parents whose kids may be a bit too normal (i.e. not brilliant in spite of IQ scores, subjective evaluations or whatever) but life is like that. Everyone must learn to deal with the cards they are dealt, and at some point stop blaming the “system” for their weaknesses.</p>

92

<p>Piggybacking on NewMass: “Quick thinkers”, those who make connections very facilely and with speed, are usually extremely bright. </p>

<p>The speed of processing is actually a component of giftedness. You know the difference when you sit in a room with exceptionally intelligent people, and watch the speed of conversation, which typically includes exceptional wit and very quick humor, etc. It is not for the faint of heart, and certainly not for the slow processor.</p>

<p>Those people who take more time to put together ideas, to think things through, to connect thoughts, are simply left in the dust. By the time they have come up with the snappy comeback, the conversation has moved on to something else.</p>

93

<p>

</p>

<p>Here is what I’d do if I were CB: Let everyone choose whether or not to have accomodations, but identify each and every accomodation per test. Allow people to take tests as many times as they choose (good for CB coffer$), and allow them to send on only the sets of scores they choose - from accomodated tests, or non-accomodated tests, or both.</p>

<p>If the information in the thread-starting article is true, and extended time doesn’t help most people, then allowing extra time won’t help typical students as much as they think. Colleges will have the information they need to decide which students to accept - accomodated students or straight test takers. I can’t help but think that many colleges would happily accept accomodated students. I also think that certain majors might consider some accomodations irrelevant, e.g. creative programs, design programs, etc. where creativity is more important than linear thinking.</p>

<p>As things stand, the SAT does not flag (as if it could!) test preparation, justifyably seen as unfair to some. It currently provides multiple sets of scores, allowing colleges to superscore if colleges think that is in their interest. Why not give them this additonal bit of info?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is exactly where the SAT shines, in my opinion. It shows that your dyslexic son has capaiblities that the typical classroom obscures. We need these types of thinkers too, not just the snappy comeback types. Deep problems require deep, creative thinking.</p>

94

<p>Well you’re wrong, newmassdad–I’m a psychologist with a gifted kid who has spent a lot of time researching this subject. Gifted kids often experience “asynchronous development” where one set of skills is so out of line with other skills that a child has difficulty dealing with it. Teachers often aren’t trained to recognize it either.</p>

95

<p>Bethievt is correct, newmassdad, and with all due respect, it sounds as if you are only conversant with the theories on intelligence which fit your underlying bias.</p>

<p>As for #92, LOL. I know lots of kids who are very bright and converse at the speed of lightning–it’s usually very easy to pick out the “gifted” kids from the average kids. But I also know that there are people who are *very * bright and very slow thinkers and speakers–you would most definitely assume they were not very intelligent until you got to know them. I’m not a professional in the field, but I must say there appears to be a lot of misinformation here.</p>

96

<p>

</p>

<p>Epiphany, could please we consider the fact that, among the many attacks hurled at ETS/TCB, the issue of the length of the SAT is one of the most common. The only option to accomodate more time for each section would be to limit the number of questions. And, fwiw, this would make the test more difficult and even more subject to adequate preparation. </p>

<p>Regarding the time constraints, it may be wise to test it for yourself. Take a math section (or half of a section by answering only the odd or even questions) and time yourself. Score yourself … and then give yourself a second pass to finish the set of questions and check your answers. You might be surprised at your own careless mistakes and simple errors. </p>

<p>We all know that the SAT tests knowledge that barely exceeds the 9th grade … this means that the overwhelming majority of students DO know the material tested. In turn, what the SAT measures is how quickly one can recognizes the type of question and find the correct answer by using knowledge, intuition, mental quickness, experience, or a combination of other factors. Without a restricted time factor, the test as it exists today become meaningless.</p>

<p>Solutions that include an extended testing time will require a MORE difficult test. On the web, it is pretty easy to find IQ tests that have no time limit. I doubt that this is a direction we want to pursue.</p>

<p>Lastly, in contrast to all the criticism, should we not recognize that the SAT has done a remarkable job of delivering results that allow for the average and median scores to remain in the long term tracked range as well as a (growing) number of perfect scores, all the while respecting the historical validity of test since the end of WW2. Not a small feat!</p>

<p>

[quote]
It’s not that simple, xiggi. I consider CB somewhat of an Immoveable Object supporting the laws of physics</p>

<p>As far as creating a better mousetrap, creating a new test is not easy. However, there is an organization that has been created for the sole purpose of competing with ETS: ACT.org. Why have they been unable to create a better test, or IMHO a test that is merely equal to the SAT in integrity and validity. </p>

<p>My personal take is that we place WAY too much focus on a rather simple test. While it represents a component of the application package, it is only the tip of the iceberg. It is very visible but it should not eclipse the rest of the application! There are plenty of opportunities to place the SAT in its proper context by presenting a full and detailed application. Fwiw, I feel strongly that an unflagged SAT score is entirely misleading and represents an attempt to HIDE specific information as opposed to explain it … honestly.</p>

97

<p>“If a student needs extra time, only on the SAT, and the colleges are notified, in order to be successful, I don’t see the problem at all.”</p>

<p>^^That IS the topic at hand. The title of this thread is “The Test from Hell,” not “How to Ensure Worldly Success for Everyone With One or Multiple Learning Disabilities.” Once again, I see that for some people, this is really about Other Issues: their anecdotes; their “knowledge” based on their limited circumference of experience; their prejudices (LD = stupidity = not college material in the first place but maybe vocational school, LOL; Accommodation = Unfair Advantage and/or Lying & Cheating). For them, this is all about their perception about how other people supposedly get too many breaks in life.</p>

<p>I read the thread by anita carefully, Allmusic. I had had a long, exhausting day when I read it, and didn’t address it immediately because another poster had asked for a reply and because frankly the posts that followed anita’s were more pertinent to the discussion at hand. That’s a nice anecdote she shares. Terrific. I actually did address some points she made in a reply which got lost because I was so tired.</p>

<p>I do not equate the story she tells: accommodation + REMEDIATION + medical school + lack of independence (continual support systems described), as being in the same, more specific discussion of a highly functioning, nonremedial, highly independent high school student who performs differently on a single pre-undergraduate test with borderline academic relevance & even less permanent relevance. I think anita’s story is important, but not necessarily a template for what we’re discussing.</p>

<p>And btw, I do question the wisdom of those who seemed to have misled the woman in anita’s post with continual overpromises & handholding. I would agree that one wonders if that should be the model for med school training, but this is ONE story. And we don’t know how many other people in this woman’s life participated in well-meaning misguidance, and/or whether the woman somewhat deceived herself. More importantly, this happens a lot in life. People with no LD and no accommodation often end up on a law or medical or other professional track, to discover they don’t have the right stuff. Standardized tests are not designed to prove whether you have The Right Stuff for your dream career. Your career training – which the woman failed – as well as your later job performance, will determine whether you have The Right Stuff. Unaccommodated people can pass both the LSAT and the Bar Exam, only to discover that they do not have the job skills (as opposed to the intellectual ability) for day-to-day lawyering, which, like other careers, involves much more than intellectual ability & standardized test performance. But for the anecdote that anita tells, I, and probably other posters, can provide competing examples. </p>

<p>So many posters have PM’ed me about their high-achieving sons & daughters who obtained legitimate accommodation on the SAT/ACT and are performing magnificently in highly selective colleges & U’s right now, where the rubber meets the road. Most of these are in fact not being accommodated in college because they don’t need it or choose not to use it. (They don’t happen to be HYP, although, as I mentioned, H, Y, and P do enroll accomplished & capable LD students.) I don’t know about all their career intentions, but I can tell you that with my own D, the kinds of careers she will seek are galaxies away from anything tested on the SAT – I mean in style, not just substance. SAT tests so little of real-life, real-world ability, in addition to testing so little of academic ability. It is NOT an indicator of life success. </p>

<p>The story described in the article I cited, opening the thread, does not closely resemble anita’s story. Rather, the article’s story more closely resembles the experiences of CC parent posters – those who post publicly, & those who limit themselves to private messaging. The author did not describe a remedial student, but rather an obviously capable student who is strong college material.</p>

<p>As to the giftedness issue, indeed quickness is a sign – a sign, btw, abundant in my younger d. So quick that it’s frightening sometimes. She has indeed been tested as gifted. The SAT does not exclude for giftedness; neither is it in itself a measure of giftedness. Giftedness is more complex than than what is measured by the SAT, but this is a myth perpetrated by those with limited understanding of giftedness, and by others with an agenda to prove their own high-scoring s’s and d’s as gifted, due to the SAT score. Giftedness is also not equated with high achievement and/or hard work. </p>

<p>Giftedness is one set of manifestations. LD (with its many discrete & combined aspects) is a different set of manifestations. Sometimes these overlap, sometimes they do not. They appear to overlap the most among those in the gifted population who are also highly artistic. The reasons for these correlations are not entirely clear, but the case studies are very interesting.</p>

98

<p>bethievt and hereshoping,</p>

<p>You are welcome to filter the research any way you like. </p>

<p>Of course some gifted kids have “asynchronous development” but with no greater frequency than non gifted kids. Yes, teachers may have a harder time recognizing it in a kid that does well in other areas. So what does that prove?</p>

<p>I’ll bow out of this discussion. It is obviously leading nowhere.</p>

99

<p>I dare say I know as much or more about true, natural giftedness (as opposed to high achievement) as anyone on this board. I am not going to quibble with some of the poppycock, but will say again that we may not all be discussing the same part of the elepant.</p>

<p>I doubt there exists a non-gifted natural super high scorer on the SAT (meaning with no test prep or accommodation), and this has nothing whatsoever to do with hard work or overachievement. It is probably a small group, but I know personally of a few members of this subset, and they are highly gifted individuals. In and of itself, an unstudied high score on the SAT is, without question, an easy sign of true precociousness, and CTY recognizes it as well.</p>

<p>These kids don’t need accommodations: they achieve the score naturally. </p>

<p>I think the SAT is a dumb test, the way it is used now, and also don’t think that high scores mean diddly squat when it comes to a person’s happiness or success. But let’s not pretend that all gifted kids are learning disabled, and in need of lots of services and support. I know plenty who don’t fit that mold at all.</p>

100

<p>How can a “dumb test” possibly be the be-all and end-all to reveal “true precociousness?” Poppycock, indeed.</p>

<p>Who has said that “all gifted kids” are learning disabled? My younger taught himself to read at age 3 and has sailed through school–he also is “normal” socially and in every other way. My older didn’t speak until age 3 (professional speech therapy from age 3 to age 9) which impairment rendered his speech unintelligible until well into first grade, and has had to deal with associated deficits and other manifestations related to his history to this day. </p>

<p>If a person who knows most about “true, natural giftedness” cannot understand how a kid like this can be “naturally” highly intelligent and yet have his academic work impacted in some areas, it’s no wonder we’re losing so many kids.</p>

<p>This attitude is nothing new to me, btw: I encountered it all through my kid’s public school education by some educators. Some of them are maddeningly ignorant about gifted/ld issues–to the extent that they should not be allowed in the business of educating kids.</p>