Extended Time on Tests

[Shogun1]

Hello AndroidForums,

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on extended time for test takers.

If you're unfamiliar with the phenomena, here's a brief rundown. In the US, if a student is diagnosed with a learning disability of some sort, they are entitled to extended testing periods for almost any test they take. These normally range from a 50-100% boost in time length, meaning a 1hr test for normal students would give extended time testers anywhere from 1:30 - 2:00 for the test. These disabilities can be anything from complete ******edness to ADHD, and higher institutions are legally forbidden from figuring out whether or not a test was taken under extended time circumstances.


A little about myself and my opinion - I'm an Indian-Amerian student, and the first of my family to grow up with a US education. I'm a naturally talented test taker, and generally recieved good scores on most tests I participated in through high school, which resulted in acceptance at a very selective US university. I say this not to boast, but to help you all understand my position. The highschool I attended was a private school, where most of the students were very rich caucasian students.

Although I had been preoccupied with my own studies, I quickly figured out that a very large percentage of these kids were taking every single test with extended time, maybe 25%+. This wasn't just for the big national tests like the SAT - rather, every single test in every single class was to be taken under these circumstances.

I know from personal interaction with these kids that there's nothing special about most of them. No real illnesses, no legal ******edness, nothing. Some of them are at the top of the class - the person who co-captained our debate team with me, for example, got into Stanford, a school that I didn't make the cut at. His extended time is for "slow processing"...but there was nothing slow about him when we participated in and won at 12 hour long debate state tournaments. I can't blame the guy for taking advantage of an opportunity presented to him, but it just feels so unfair and wrong.

Most of the kids are the same way. ABC news did an article that showed wealthy parents, like those at my school, were able to pay lots of money to physicians in exchange for a skewed diagnosis, giving their kids this huge advantage. But for the kids that actually have these disabilities, maybe the system is fair as intened.

Back in India, if you said you needed an extra hour on the IIT entrance exam, the proctor would probably beat the ADHD out of you with a ruler. Most of these kids are diagnosed at early ages (5yrs-). What 5 year old ISN'T going to be distracted when you ask him or her to take a test? They get diagnosed, and get free benefits their whole lives. ADHD meds are like legal study pills you see on the TV. The entire illness, let alone the extended time bit, just seems so unfair to me.

Anyhow, the people here at AF are some of the smartest internet users I've met. What are your thoughts on Extended Time testing? Is it unfair, or am I entirely wrong about its nature? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

 

[samwapp]

I had a friend who had just been diagnosed with severe narcolepsy, and she was given extra time, which is understandable. She can't take a test without having a sleep attack. But some things are just ridiculous

 

[myshkin]

My niece is dyslexic, she gets extra time on reading tests. They do not get extra time on every single test. My sister & her husband are both teachers. My sister is dyslexic & so is my brother. I'm not, but it is a familial affliction.

 

[Stuntman]

I'm from Canada and have been out of school of any kind for decades. When I was in school, I do not recall any such policy to allow certain students with disabilities to have more time on tests. In fact I have never heard of this policy ever. I'm not a parent, so perhaps things have changed since then.

My feeling on this is that if a student needs extra help in learning material, he should get the extra attention or tools that he needs. When it comes down to actually performing on a test, this extra time does not seem fair. The reason I feel this way is when people are in the world and have to perform at a job for instance, the customer is likely going to expect the same service or performance regardless of what disabilities you may or may not have.

Let's say I hire some people to paint my house. Let's say it takes 3 days to do for this particular job or a particular price. I'm not going to accept that someone with a physical disability is going to have to take twice as long. If he cannot do the job in the allotted time, I will find someone else who can. If he can overcome his disability by improving his skill or the use of specialised aparatus to do the job in the allotted them, then great.

I'll use NFL football as another example. In the NFL, you get 40 seconds to start the next play. Are you going to give the QB of a team more time because he has a documented disability? If the QB cannot call the play and get it off in time and perform as expected on the field, he will be cut. If he needs extra preparation or training and is able to perform up to standard on the field, he'll get to keep his job.

I see tests as pretty much the standard which to measure everyone's performance. The conditions of the test to measure your ability should be standardised regardless of what advantages or disadvantages you have. The prepration for the tests can be different depending on your needs. Some people may need a different level of preparation, but the measurement should be standard across the board.

 

[Rxpert83]

I am usually in the top 10% of students to finish tests in my class so I have no problems ever getting it done in the amount of time it is allotted.

In my experiences, most of the students who get extra allotted time do not actually need it.

University's bend over backwards and will do anything once "lawyer" is mentioned.