ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:49 pm
They did take the same test! They had the same questions, picked from the same answers, and ended up with the same scores. You seem to be thinking that these accommodations give the test taker some sort of unfair advantage, but that's not the case. The accommodations level the playing field so that the student is not disadvantaged by his disability.
I don't agree. The conditions of the test are part of the test. If disabilities make it so that the conditions are too onerous there should be a different test. If you change the conditions, it's a different test.
Also, you are assuming that I think that exceptions give an unfair advantage to those with disabilities. I don't (except in the case where exceptions are obtained fraudulently). Exceptions make it
appear that the playing field is leveled but it's not. They're merely a way to make everyone feel OK about the current system of standardized testing.
Let's say Kid A is dyslexic. How much more time does he require to take the test? Is it more or less than Kid B who is also dyslexic? If A has more severe dyslexia than B and you give them the same extension, is that really fair to A? And what if the time extension for both isn't sufficient enough to make up for their particular disability? Do you just say, "well, they got an exception and didn't perform well so sorry, we were
fair."
Is there a table that compares time allotments for dyslexia to PTSD to anxiety? Are we sure that each size fits all?
What we have is an inexact science at best (determining the effects of disabilities on standardized test taking) and trying to make it exact. The major beneficiaries are those who cheat, not those who are genuinely eligible.
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:49 pm
And again, I'm all for lessening the reliance on standardized testing (although as a good test taker, I did get a bit of an edge from taking tests). But we have to keep in mind two things. First, they exist today and are heavily relied upon. The way to de-emphasize them is not to disadvantage those with disabilities by removing their accommodations. That's patently unfair and a violation of the law. Second, even if they are de-emphasized, they'll still likely remain as some sort of factor. And as long as they are some sort of a factor, those with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations so that they can take these tests on a level playing field.
The way to de-emphasize them is to point out the inadequacies inherent in them, not bend over backwards to make a broken system appear to be equitable.
I got into school pretty much solely on my ability to take tests but I still think they are overrated and over utilized. I don't think we disagree in the end objective here but on the usefulness of exceptions on standardized testing. I don't look at them as an unfair advantage for those with disabilities, I look at them as a misguided attempt that is often an unfair
disadvantage to those with disabilities because it distills their disability down to a rule like "50% more time" or "needs a reader".