[rudruff]

That parents have apparently participated in falsifying disabilities to get their children extra time on standardized testing is abhorrent. Not only because it inflates those students' scores, but also because it leads some people (including some people on this board) to call into question the entire idea of providing additional time to students with certain conditions such as ADHD, and that if kids can't do well in the time allotted, they're not going to succeed in life anyway, so let's just not worry about them. 

I'll admit, I used to be skeptical of ADHD, and parroted common lines that it was overdiagnosed, and most of these kids were probably fine, etc.  And then I had a kid with severe ADHD. He is smart, creative, and a joy to be around, but his brain is different. He has a wiring problem such that he simply cannot focus on certain tasks and bring them to completion in the same timeframe as others. He is highly distractable. That doesn't mean he lacks the intellectual horsepower to answer the questions on the test or to do well at a place like Stanford, or that with further therapy and the greater executive functioning that comes with adulthood he won't be able to better manage his ADHD to minimize its effects on his daily life. But if he's not given the opportunity to show what his brain can do in a modified testing environment, then we're setting kids like him back and putting a ceiling on where they'll be allowed to attend college. 

And sure, there will be work environments that will be better for him than others. He'll have to be mindful of that when he decides on his life's path. But he'll still need a good college degree to work at one of those better environments, too. 

I'm guessing most of us on this board have been blessed with neurotypical minds along with high native intelligence. And that's great for us. But not everyone is like that, and there are some creative, keen minds out there who have the capability to do the work well but for whom the testing environment is an exceedingly high barrier. (One of the smartest thinkers I knew in law school had terrible test anxiety but did wonderfully in all other aspects of law school, but she was not granted any testing accommodations, and her grades suffered to the point that she struggled to get a good job and no longer practices law. She was brilliant; that's a loss for all of us.) That some parents abuse the accommodation system should mean that we crack down on the cheaters, not that we end testing accommodations. In our rush to rightfully condemn those who have cheated the system, let's not lose sight of empathy for those for whom the system was devised.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Colorado, and appreciate you sharing your personal journey with us. I may have overstated things a bit in my prior posts, and you're absolutely right when it comes to methods of assessment to test for mastery of the materials, etc. And for certain kinds of accommodations for tests, I think that's spot on.

What frustrates me is that I've had experiences being required to provide extended deadline accommodations (sometimes announced at the last minute, not weeks in advance where we could have planned together) for assignments that are identical to the kinds of work product produced in my field. And the student is entitled to basically turn things in whenever they feel they are ready. I think you're absolutely right that timed, closed book law school tests are a somewhat arbitrary metric to assess ability to be a good lawyer. But if, to take a hypothetical, a law student needs twice as much time for every brief-writing assignment as every other student, and/or can't reliably say when they will be able to turn the assignment in, how is that preparing them for life as an associate who needs to meet rapid deadlines and can't expect 2x time and flexible deadlines on every research project? 

That kind of accommodation is akin to the kind I've found myself in, and why I wonder whether it's counterproductive. My sense is that most law firm partners wouldn't be able to accommodate an associate who needed twice as much time for every research project, because they'd effectively be paying the same for half the output, and unable to assign them to any important cases where meeting rapid client deadlines is crucial. As it is, I've known associates who have been canned simply for being 10% slower/worse. And I guess maybe the problem in some fields is that time management and ability to produce under deadline are the skill that need to be tested for, rather than brilliance, creativity, etc., so accommodations as to that component are the whole ball of wax.

I'm sure there's an ideal point that provides sufficient accommodations without undermining the purpose of the assessment in the first place, but in my case, for the field I'm in, I feel like it may not be serving my students well in the long term. And maybe the real fault here isn't with the idea of accommodations in general, but rather with how my university has implemented them, which is very top-down and without any engagement with the instructor.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective and first-hand experience.

I sit adjacent to a decision maker in a very different part of education. Part of the frustration you are feeling is pretty common when you are arguing "common sense" vs regulation. We deal with a number of regulatory agencies in our business and their rules often run counter to helpful suggestions provided by teachers. Because no one from the agency is standing there to say "no" that task gets handed to the senior administrator. What seems to be "top down" is usually legal advice combined with finding a workable solution and then not letting people stray from that solution so you don't need your legal team on speed dial every time someone comes up with a new proposal. 

My suggestion is to voice your opinion up your chain, but provide a written argument. Also, instead of asking for a follow-up to your written argument just ask that it be available whenever the organization meets to address the issue. It is unlikely that your position will change your organization's ADA policy, but if the organization is meeting to review ADA policy, it is nice to have some options to look through.

[rudruff]

That parents have apparently participated in falsifying disabilities to get their children extra time on standardized testing is abhorrent. Not only because it inflates those students' scores, but also because it leads some people (including some people on this board) to call into question the entire idea of providing additional time to students with certain conditions such as ADHD, and that if kids can't do well in the time allotted, they're not going to succeed in life anyway, so let's just not worry about them. 

I'll admit, I used to be skeptical of ADHD, and parroted common lines that it was overdiagnosed, and most of these kids were probably fine, etc.  And then I had a kid with severe ADHD. He is smart, creative, and a joy to be around, but his brain is different. He has a wiring problem such that he simply cannot focus on certain tasks and bring them to completion in the same timeframe as others. He is highly distractable. That doesn't mean he lacks the intellectual horsepower to answer the questions on the test or to do well at a place like Stanford, or that with further therapy and the greater executive functioning that comes with adulthood he won't be able to better manage his ADHD to minimize its effects on his daily life. But if he's not given the opportunity to show what his brain can do in a modified testing environment, then we're setting kids like him back and putting a ceiling on where they'll be allowed to attend college. 

And sure, there will be work environments that will be better for him than others. He'll have to be mindful of that when he decides on his life's path. But he'll still need a good college degree to work at one of those better environments, too. 

I'm guessing most of us on this board have been blessed with neurotypical minds along with high native intelligence. And that's great for us. But not everyone is like that, and there are some creative, keen minds out there who have the capability to do the work well but for whom the testing environment is an exceedingly high barrier. (One of the smartest thinkers I knew in law school had terrible test anxiety but did wonderfully in all other aspects of law school, but she was not granted any testing accommodations, and her grades suffered to the point that she struggled to get a good job and no longer practices law. She was brilliant; that's a loss for all of us.) That some parents abuse the accommodation system should mean that we crack down on the cheaters, not that we end testing accommodations. In our rush to rightfully condemn those who have cheated the system, let's not lose sight of empathy for those for whom the system was devised.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Colorado, and appreciate you sharing your personal journey with us. I may have overstated things a bit in my prior posts, and you're absolutely right when it comes to methods of assessment to test for mastery of the materials, etc. And for certain kinds of accommodations for tests, I think that's spot on.

What frustrates me is that I've had experiences being required to provide extended deadline accommodations (sometimes announced at the last minute, not weeks in advance where we could have planned together) for assignments that are identical to the kinds of work product produced in my field. And the student is entitled to basically turn things in whenever they feel they are ready. I think you're absolutely right that timed, closed book law school tests are a somewhat arbitrary metric to assess ability to be a good lawyer. But if, to take a hypothetical, a law student needs twice as much time for every brief-writing assignment as every other student, and/or can't reliably say when they will be able to turn the assignment in, how is that preparing them for life as an associate who needs to meet rapid deadlines and can't expect 2x time and flexible deadlines on every research project? 

That kind of accommodation is akin to the kind I've found myself in, and why I wonder whether it's counterproductive. My sense is that most law firm partners wouldn't be able to accommodate an associate who needed twice as much time for every research project, because they'd effectively be paying the same for half the output, and unable to assign them to any important cases where meeting rapid client deadlines is crucial. As it is, I've known associates who have been canned simply for being 10% slower/worse. And I guess maybe the problem in some fields is that time management and ability to produce under deadline are the skill that need to be tested for, rather than brilliance, creativity, etc., so accommodations as to that component are the whole ball of wax.

I'm sure there's an ideal point that provides sufficient accommodations without undermining the purpose of the assessment in the first place, but in my case, for the field I'm in, I feel like it may not be serving my students well in the long term. And maybe the real fault here isn't with the idea of accommodations in general, but rather with how my university has implemented them, which is very top-down and without any engagement with the instructor.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective and first-hand experience.

I sit adjacent to a decision maker in a very different part of education. Part of the frustration you are feeling is pretty common when you are arguing "common sense" vs regulation. We deal with a number of regulatory agencies in our business and their rules often run counter to helpful suggestions provided by teachers. Because no one from the agency is standing there to say "no" that task gets handed to the senior administrator. What seems to be "top down" is usually legal advice combined with finding a workable solution and then not letting people stray from that solution so you don't need your legal team on speed dial every time someone comes up with a new proposal. 

My suggestion is to voice your opinion up your chain, but provide a written argument. Also, instead of asking for a follow-up to your written argument just ask that it be available whenever the organization meets to address the issue. It is unlikely that your position will change your organization's ADA policy, but if the organization is meeting to review ADA policy, it is nice to have some options to look through.