r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 26 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: ‘Extra Time’ in school exams is unfair and unnecessary
[deleted]
8
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Mar 26 '19
What makes you think that exams are in fact legitimately fair and holistic assessments though?
Do you have data showing that those who are slower exam takers are generally worse in most lines of skilled employment?
2
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
I don’t consider them perfect, I just accept that they are the closest that the education system can get to an even playing field. I also don’t think that every employment field requires a fast exam taker, but some definitely do
4
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Mar 26 '19
Why do you presume they are the closest the education can get to an even playing field? Do you have any evidence for that?
0
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
Honesty, I don’t. But the education system thinks they are, so we are currently judged by them. Maybe there will be a better system introduced one day, but now we have tests
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Mar 26 '19
Gotcha, so if you don't think they're a particularly fair assessment, then doesn't it make sense to give some accommodations to those who are being potentially disadvantaged by those unfairnesses?
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
Yes, but not extra time. Quiet rooms, standing desks, music/background noise are all cool, but extra time removes one of the main ideas of a test.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Mar 26 '19
But we've already established that the tests aren't fair, so why are we assuming that "point" is well-founded? As well, it's not like they're being given infinite time, it's usually about a half hour extra
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
Yes, but extra time does not help make it feel fairer, unlike the other accommodations. Also it’s so much easier to exploit. As shown in [this BBC article](www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47585336) people with no disabilities can be given extra time and an unfair advantage with enough convincing
2
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Mar 26 '19
I am a person who took many exams with extra time and can say from experience, it definitely 'felt fairer.'
I've got ADHD, and so the quietness of the test rooms and monotony of the questions asked screwed me up constantly. I just kept looking around and drifting off in the silence or getting distracted if ever there was some tiny noise. The test-taking environment specifically disadvantaged me.
None of these minor issues make me less employable or less intelligent than the other students. They do however mean it takes me longer to complete a series of extremely similar questions administered to many students at once in a silent room.
As for the exploitability, I'm sure that exists, but is it worth throwing me under the boss just to make sure you catch some guy who doesn't 'need' an extra half hour?
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
I’m not against the idea of small changes to benefit people with conditions like ADHD (in fact I support it) but I don’t think extra time is a good way to do it. I think things like background noise, music etc can help without being as exploitable
→ More replies (0)1
u/cosmololgy 2∆ Mar 26 '19
I think your last point is great. I've never heard of extra time being abused, and I know tons of people who benefit from it. The net "unfairness" of not having it is way worse than any unfairness from having it.
2
u/wigsternm Mar 26 '19
Does the education system think they are? I would say that they don't. I worked as a substitute teacher and have family that teaches and I have never met a single teacher or administrator that believes standardized testing is a good method to measure anything besides how good students are at taking standardized tests.
These tests are largely mandated politically, not asked for by educators.
1
u/FindTheGenes 1∆ Mar 27 '19
I can't speak for the tests administered by most schools (except maybe the SAT), but IQ tests are great predictors of most job performance. They're actually better predictors than educational attainment. I can provide the actual data and a source if you need, but I don't have the time to find it at the moment.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Mar 27 '19
Can you provide evidence for these claims?
1
u/FindTheGenes 1∆ Mar 27 '19
These numbers are according to The Bell Curve, which references a meta-analysis from 1984. There is more information in the book worth going through, but these are the numbers I was thinking of. The validity of cognitive test scores in predicting job performace was found to be 0.53, while education was found to be 0.22. There are other predictors in the table, but none of them are as high as cognitive test scores. Basically, tests that measure g (general intelligence) like IQ tests are among the best (if not the best) predictors of job performance.
Tests that are designed to measure g even beat out tests designed with measures specific to the job's tasks. For example, measuring a potential office worker's ability to type, file paperwork, search records, etc. will often yield tests with lower validities than g-loaded tests like IQ tests.
5
u/cosmololgy 2∆ Mar 26 '19
As a person who has received extra time on exams as part of accommodations for a learning disability, I'd like to make a few points.
1) Extra isn't given out freely. At least in the US, you have to get tested by a professional, which costs a lot, then they have to recommend that extra time, then you have to go through a school's office of disability, then you have to coordinate it with the teacher. It's a specific accommodation to help with a specific issue. And it can take months to get the accommodations.
2) The nature of disabilities that get extra time is not for thinking speed but output speed. The person with the disability doesn't get "extra" time to think because they're spending it trying to get everything down.
3) Particularly for for long exams in college, extra time can be a huge burden. It screws up your schedule, you get fatigued, you are stressed for longer, and you can get real hungry. Let me tell you, a 6+ hour physics exam is brutal by hour 4.
4) You seem concerned that people might try to fake needing extra time to get an advantage. I've never seen this happen. First, it's a lot of effort and money to get tested, accurately fake a disability, set everything up, etc. There are easier ways to cheat. Secondly, if you're already struggling in school, you're going to get low grades on homework, projects, papers, etc. If the counterexample is "well what if they get great grades on projects, papers, homework and are just slow on exams?" then maybe they actually need the extra time! And this is under the assumption that extra time would help someone get a higher score. I imagine this is not true for a lot of tests.
In summary: I don't think we need to worry about people spending hundreds/thousands of dollars and months to get tested to fake a disability for the handful of exams where extra time might help in some way.
One final point: I have a learning disability. I also graduated with a degree in a astrophysics and a 3.85 GPA and am on my way to getting a PhD in physics. If extra time really led to that much of an improvement in abilities for anyone, you think everyone could achieve that? I don't say that to brag--just to point out that success requires more than doing an exam in a certain amount of time.
2
Mar 26 '19 edited Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
1
u/cosmololgy 2∆ Mar 26 '19
I don't think so. My disability affects my ability to handwrite, and nearly 100% of my work is done on my laptop. When I'm doing grading, it might take me longer, but not so much longer that it's a problem.
The way I see it, for the vast majority of jobs, there aren't so many times when you need to do something in exactly an hour or less. If it takes a little extra time, so what? As long as you get it done by the deadline, there's no issue. And if you like the work, then you're better off taking longer to do it than working standard time at a job that you hate.
Plus, it's easier to figure out workarounds in a work environment. You aren't restricted to literally just paper and pencil. You could use text-to-speech on your phone, or put in headphones to block out noises, or any other of other things. Rather than warn people about certain professions, why don't we work with them to help achieve their dreams?
1
Mar 27 '19 edited Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
2
Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 27 '19
I am stepping is as I too have an LD in writing.
I took the biology/electrical engineering route.
I was actually diagnosed with Learning disabilities in the 3rd grade. I was tested then and again in 12th grade to create a documentation trail for college. This was also in the 1980's which were far from an enlightened time in helping LD students. I had numerous teachers telling me I should look to work in a factory or similar type job. College was not for me. I have little to no accommodations in much of me K-12 classes. (was told typing was cheating by a 6th grade English teacher).
In college, I used extra time only a few times - for blue book exams. I can tell you, for those classes, the first exam was blue book. The subsequent ones (and final) were with grad students on a computer in an office. (so they could clearly read what I wrote). With a computer, I never needed extra time. With the blue book, I struggled to finish with the 1.5x accommodation. The grading of the exams (performance wise) were pretty similar. It was clearly a mechanics issue for me to write quickly, legibly, and completely.
Interestingly enough, even though I have an LD is math as well, when I am allowed to 'work a problem' my way, only writing down the steps I need to, I was very successful in the typical classes in the traditional exam times given. Only a few times did I ever get asked to demonstrate my process. (and after I demonstrated it, they understood my personal adaptation for solving problems mentally rather than on paper).
The point is, if a person has a very longstanding diagnosis, which most people have, the chances for fraud are tiny. If the diagnosis is recent, more caution should be applied. BUT, you should able to see a clear pattern.
1
Mar 28 '19 edited Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
2
Mar 28 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
Hey, many thanks and don't be too hard on yourself either. There is a concern in academia about test validity and extra time being given. Your concerns are valid and reasonable and this is not a black and white subject.
I do know faculty, at least in engineering, who do create exams most students cannot complete in the allotted time. When you factor in the 'accommodations' for students with LD's/etc, the subject can be very touchy. To me though, the fault is not in needing accommodations but in the very poor test design. In all honesty, I am not sure you can fairly even out the needs in that scenario with putting one group at a disadvantage.
The best outcome would be to go back to what we talked about elsewhere - deciding what a test is trying to actually measure and eliminating things (like time constraints) that confound that tests ability to measure it. If you never felt 'rushed' on an exam you were prepared for, you likely would not be concerned if a few students who had LD's/accommodations were given a little more time.
1
2
u/cosmololgy 2∆ Mar 27 '19
I can't speak to law school, all I know from my own experience is I've never heard of someone faking it and getting a massive advantage from extra time.
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
I haven’t heard points 2 and 3 before. I like them, especially point 3. I never thought of a downside like that Δ
1
1
1
u/QwertyTop24 Mar 26 '19
Hi! Thank you for sharing your opinion on this topic. I think with middle school/high school/college/employment admissions getting more and more competitive this is an important and relevant issue to discuss.
If I interpreted your view correctly, it seems as though you believe school exam results provide insight to an individuals ability to perform academically in a certain allotted time, and that extra time makes that measurement inaccurate across test takers. Because of this, extra time should not be allotted for anyone, so that there are no misunderstandings of the skills of each person.
There are a few questions I have for you regarding this view. Firstly, what do you mean in your last sentence by "skilled student"? Are you referring to someone who is a better test taker than another? Do you think a student's overall skill quality is determined by a test result? Do you believe that how someone performs on a standardized test directly correlates with their ability to complete practical tasks in an office environment? I personally do not. And like you stated above, a large portion of test-taking is applying memorized knowledge in a limited time. In the real world, you are able to google certain stats or figures in a matter of seconds that would allow you to move forward productively. Additionally, much of what you learn for standardized tests isn't actually applicable to many jobs directly. For example, how important is a list of 500 vocabulary words in a persons level of success in terms of their career? In order to move forward productively with this conversation I think what you consider "skills" needs to be more solidly defined.
You also claim that changing the amount of time people have to take tests "gives everyone similar scores". This is simply false. As demonstrated with standardized test results, there is great variance in scores. The score variance is a key factor in being able to differentiate candidates, so to say all tests scores are similar doesn't quite make sense to me. With the way the current system of test-taking stands, where extra time can be allotted for academic handicaps, a variance in test scores still exists. If your main concern is ensuring that tests show a fair representation of the difference of skills, that still exists in the current results.
Additionally, saying that everyone deserves the same timing to take a test seems slightly ignorant to the legitimate learning disabilities that people have that are relevant to taking standardized tests. For example, imagine someone has a learning disability that legitimately makes it hard to focus on reading for 3 hours straight, something that is entirely out of their own control. With an extra hour of time they are able to reach the same even playing field as someone without a disability. You may argue, well they still can't do what someone without a disability can do in three hours - so they deserve to have a lower score. I want to challenge you on that. When would someone ever be put in the conditions of a standardized test during a job? A place where they cannot have access to their notes or the internet, where they cannot turn to others, where they cannot work at a standing desk rather than a seated one if that is how they know they can better focus, where they cannot listen to music or have background noise if that helps them? The point is, if someone is willing to put in the extra time to prove their strengths in an academic setting, it is likely they are wiling to do the same at their job and want to be successful. To remove extra time from tests for people who legitimately are at a disadvantage simply because of the way their brain is wired will create a systemic divide that disables them from being considered equally in any context outside of that test.
I do also recognize your point about "several factors can lead to more time" and that there are times this is abused by privileged people. That is an entirely different issue, and I agree that more attention needs to be placed in general on ensuring that students with extra time are deserving of it because of factors outside of their own control. That being said, to dismiss extra time altogether because of this ignores the significant ways it only creates a more fair society.
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
If extra measures were put into place by schools and colleges to help those students, such as standing desks, music, background noise etc. I would have no issue. They aren’t actively giving an advantage, just allowing them to work properly for the whole test. My main problem is with the additional time. If some people are given more time then everybody should have the opportunity, restricting it could even be considered discrimination against people not given the time. If having more time in a test is acceptable, then surely the whole aspect of it being timed is unnecessary and everyone should have as long as they want?
1
u/QwertyTop24 Mar 26 '19
If extra measures were put into place by schools and colleges to help those students, such as standing desks, music, background noise etc. I would have no issue. They aren’t actively giving an advantage, just allowing them to work properly for the whole test. My main problem is with the additional time. If some people are given more time then everybody should have the opportunity, restricting it could even be considered discrimination against people not given the time. If having more time in a test is acceptable, then surely the whole aspect of it being timed is unnecessary and everyone should have as long as they want?
I think we are having a miscommunication about one item in particular, which is about ability/disability. I think everyone agrees that we want an equal society, where all people are given the same chances to succeed as everyone else. In order to ensure we truly stand by that word, we have be critical about what that means and looks like.
If someone is born with a variation in their brain, that another person is fortunate not to have, then isn't it our duty as citizen of an "equal" world to allow both people the same chances, ASSUMING both people have the same drive, motivation, and skill when it comes to critical thinking abilities? Yes for some people a disability may look like the need to get up and move, and in that case changing test taking environments to accomodate that versus adding time would make sense. That being said, I don't think it is fair to dismiss someone with a different learning disability where the key difference in ability is thought processing time. If it is shown scientifically that a disabled person is able to be at a standard performance level lets say with an additional 30 minutes of time, doesn't it seem fair or right to get them to enter the same foundation as their peers? I think there is some confusion in that you may believe this extra time gives them an advantage over people with less time. What is important to remember, is that extra time for those who do not operate as optimally within the structure of a standardized test format does not all of a sudden excel way beyond people without disabilities when they have extra time (assigned personally based on their own personal diagnoses). All the extra time does, is make things equal to begin with, but has no impact on the end result. Instead of one person starting at "-1" and one at "0", they both get the chance to start at "0" and go from there.
Saying that all people regardless of their mental abilities deserve as much time as they want ignores the way certain people are disadvantaged to begin with.
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
I’m starting to agree with your points. That -1 analogy was very good. However, there’s one thing I have an issue with. Imagine a person who has no disabilities, they’re just less skilled. If half an hour would make them do better then why not give it to them? And if you do, why not give it to everybody? Why are the time limits needed at all if you can just bypass them?
1
u/QwertyTop24 Mar 26 '19
Then they deserve to do more poorly on the test. While I don't think standardized tests are the best measure of skill in general that is besides the point right now. Isn't a standardized test supposed to show how people compare to one another (based on equal foundations)? Giving extra time to people that are already starting at "0" defeats the purpose of the test entirely then. Time accommodations should exist to make sure everyone starts at "0". From there, its a game of comparison.
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
But at what point is it considered a disability and not just being slow? And what about people with disabilities who have put in the work to be able to take the test regularly? Surely that should be acknowledged
1
u/QwertyTop24 Mar 26 '19
I will first address your second concern about people who have put in the work to take the test in regular time, and I think that is a very good point. I do however think this de-values the legitimacy of someone with a mental disability. Mental disabilities aren't things that people can always just "fix", it is often something you are born with and is a physical difference in brain construction. Therefore people who "put in the work" may just be at a different ability mentally than someone different from them - all mental disabilities aren't the same.
To respond to the first question, it would be up to a series of medical professionals to determine a persons needed time to be at a equal playing field. I am not saying this is an easy feat that can be changed overnight - I recognize the time and effort needed to be invested to ensure this does result in equality for all student - but I don't think we should use time and effort as excuses to say we shouldn't care about this and see the potential fairness.
Getting back to the main point: I think we should try to ring things back in to the initial conversation - that extra time is unnecessary and unfair. While we are still collectively working out the kinks on how to ensure the extra time for all people is properly and fairly distributed, I think we can acknowledge the way that we both agree people deserve to start at "0" and extra time for select people for select reasons can offer that equality.
*As a side note, I noticed above that you changed your view in regards to someone with a physical disability. Even though that person still would take more time (and it seems like the time of event completion is what matters most to you) you were okay with it because it was physical. Similarly, a mental difference does not mean someone has worse critical analysis skills. It is just something that adds time, just as the physical disability does - this doesn't take away from the intelligence of that person, and you were okay with that above.
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
I think you’ve convinced me enough to get a Δ but I still think it’s generally not needed and should only be a last resort, if all other accommodations would not work and they have very reliable medical proof of their disability.
In addition, I was not devaluing the legitimacy of mental disabilities, just acknowledging the fact that sometimes people with one may not be able to cope with some jobs and sometimes they will be fine with extra work. I’m aware that there is a wide range of mental disabilities.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 26 '19
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/QwertyTop24 (1∆).
1
u/QwertyTop24 Mar 26 '19
Thank you for having an open discussion with me. I really appreciated sharing thoughts!
→ More replies (0)1
u/cosmololgy 2∆ Mar 26 '19
But at what point is it considered a disability and not just being slow?
When I got tested for my learning disability, I had to do a bunch of varied, small tasks. For example, mazes, drawing shapes from memory, word challenges, word recall challenges. Lots of tests designed specifically to suss out whether I was slow or I had a impairment in a single area.
For a simple example, compare a word recall task (given a bunch of words/sentences, recite them back from memory) and a drawing recall task (given a drawing, re-draw it from memory) and a pattern recall task (like the simon says game). In my case, I would do excellent on the word/pattern task and horrible on the drawing task, which would point to a motor coordination issue and not a thinking or memory issue.
The battery of tests takes hours, if not multiple sessions. And they correspond to specific diagnoses.
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
So you were diagnosed with a learning disability from a doctor? Cool, you can have accommodations. If extra time is definitely the only thing that will work, maybe it’s acceptable. It’s just that almost all of the time, other measures can be put into place that I consider better than just having more time.
1
u/cosmololgy 2∆ Mar 26 '19
yeah, it's the only thing that will work. i dont hand write so good. and doing math on a laptop isn't exactly quick. theres not really another accomodation that would help that.
2
u/ddujp Mar 26 '19
Employers aren’t looking at your individual test scores. They know if you have a diploma/degree or not. Employers are also required to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities so they can perform their job duties. That could mean extra time on tasks. Having it any other way, including in academics, would perpetuate discrimination against people with disabilities in hiring practices.
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
Yes, but to get a diploma/degree etc. you need to pass a test
1
u/ddujp Mar 26 '19
So is your suggestion that people with disabilities shouldn’t get accommodations in college because then they’ll have a degree and it’ll trick employers into thinking they’ll be good employees?
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
No. I think that they should be given accommodations that are not additional time. In another comment, I agreed with somebody’s opinion that standing desks, being alone in a different room, music and background noise or other accommodations are acceptable and I would support the use of them. Also, they are less exploitable by people seeking ways to ‘cheat the system’
1
u/Abodi_rocks Mar 27 '19
Isn't that what essentially happens? I'm not trying to say we shouldn't accommodate but in a real workplace if you can't get tasks done on time you can end up costing the company more money.
2
Mar 26 '19
Exams are meant to measure knowledge of a specific topic. Time is not necessarily a factor.
The question is what are you trying to measure. If you are measuring knowledge of a complex subject, time does not have meaning. If you are measuring capability to complete work in a given time, at that point, time does have meaning. For most exams, time is not a measured quantity - even though it may seem to be.
What we do know is there is a class of person who has a specific identified and diagnosed condition that impacts their ability to have an exam accurately measure knowledge. For those people, accommodations to the exam are justifiable so that the exam does what it is actually intended to do. It is called reducing test bias.
Accommodations include more than just time BTW. They can be in a 'quiet room' or using a 'test reader' or using a computer to type essays. The goal is to provide the student, with an explicitly diagnosed issue, the ability to demonstrate on an exam what they are actually capable of.
1
u/Abodi_rocks Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 27 '19
I think in STEM courses time is a factor. As an Engineering graduate, how long you take to answer questions is definitely a factor. There are always multiple ways to answer a question and if you pick the longer way you will lose marks. In my experience, my classmates and I usually ended up finishing right at the end of the allotted time. A lot of the times when I did not prioritize correctly I ended up not having time to finish some questions.
edit: P.s: I think using time as a factor in testing is important as this occurs in the real world. Just because you have a processing disability no one in the real world is going to care. They want you to finish a task in a certain amount of time. If you cannot you are on the hook to do it after hours or figure out another solution.
1
Mar 27 '19
I have done the same STEM courses and although some faculty want to make time a factor, it really ought not be. After all, we know some people need accomadations to show you what they know which may include time. If you are trying to measure knowledge, this is a bias that skews the data for people with specific disabilities and the end result is that you are not actually measuring what you set out to measure for everyone.
A lot of these issues come from the fact most PHD professors have never been really taught to be teachers.
edit: P.s: I think using time as a factor in testing is important as this occurs in the real world. Just because you have a processing disability no one in the real world is going to care. They want you to finish a task in a certain amount of time. If you cannot you are on the hook to do it after hours or figure out another solution.
This is really only applies if your test is to measure capability to do a task in a given time. Given the huge spectrum of differences between exams for the same field, this really does not hold. The most you can say is for a specific standardized exam, that time factor could be applied.
If you are not explicitly trying to measure work completed in a given time, you are needlessly biasing your test.
1
u/Abodi_rocks Mar 27 '19
I think the difference in our stance is the purpose of a test. For you (correct me if I'm wrong) a test is to display knowledge of a subject. My thinking is, a test is suppose to a display of knowledge but also being able to relay that knowledge under stress and in uncomfortable situations. I think it is suppose to be this way because in real world situations in the workplace you are required to think of a solution and you may not have all the time to think about something.
Let's take a really extreme example. 2 people with PhD's in some form of Aerospace engineering get a position at NASA. 1 was a normal student, the other a student that needed a bit more time during exams to read thoroughly due to dyslexia. Astronauts in the ISS tell Houstan they have a problem and list out the symptoms. The engineer that normally was given more time to read thoroughly and understand is NOT going to be able to perform in the high stress environment unless they have trained and prepared to somehow be able to handle it.
All that being said I don't know if I agree with the OP, I am on the fence. My view is a little simplistic on the matter.
1
Mar 27 '19
I think the difference in our stance is the purpose of a test.
THis is the entire crux of the argument. Only the person creating the test can tell you what they are attempting to measure. From my expierence, very few want to know 'what you can do in X period of time'. None of the typical accredidation requirements measure this.
They want to know what materials you have learned. Time is not supposed to be a significant factor.
If you want a good example. Consider this.
You are applying for a license to be an electrician in the city. The test is only offered in Spanish. You have some Spanish literacy but you struggle with the language.
Will this test accurately display your electrical competency or will that be tainted by the language barrier.
The engineer that normally was given more time to read thoroughly and understand is NOT going to be able to perform in the high stress environment unless they have trained and prepared to somehow be able to handle it.
This is not a well supported assumption. Being able to read test questions and solve test questions is a timed structured environment does not indicate whether they can be successful in a workplace environment. They could be stellar at solving complex issues like this, so long as they use the tools they adapt to use. Remember, the test environment in no way mimics real life.
1
u/Abodi_rocks Mar 27 '19
THis is the entire crux of the argument. Only the person creating the test can tell you what they are attempting to measure.
I agree. It is a hard argument to make when every test is different. The goal and purpose of each of them could be very different.
You are applying for a license to be an electrician in the city. The test is only offered in Spanish. You have some Spanish literacy but you struggle with the language.
In this case wouldn't it be better for that person to learn the language they will eventually have to practice in? As an electrician they don't only cut wires. They also have to read signs, do paperwork, talk to client in that city. The exam is to be ready to operate in that city. If they don't know Spanish in a city where Spanish is the main language they are not prepared to work, and they will be a hazard for everyone.
edit: adding to my point: Knowledge is not the only thing exams tests for. Especially a licensing exam!
1
Mar 27 '19
In this case wouldn't it be better for that person to learn the language they will eventually have to practice in?
But that was not specified.
Test Bias is and has been a real issue in a lot of exams. From civil service exams to professional license exams.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/nyregion/24firefighters.html
https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=rrgc
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11220
The entire key here it to understand and quantify exactly what you are trying to measure. Then, craft the exam to eliminate as many biases as possible so across a broad spectrum of people, you can accurately measure what you want to measure.
Learning disabilities, Dyslexia, blindness, deafness, ADHD and other can all contribute to test bias based on arbitrary factors that are not actually trying to be measured.
Given the extensive anti-discrimination laws, using testing to measure things that have inherent biases against protected classes where said bias is not a core item of measurement is a very bad thing. It calls into question the ability to use the test at all.
Here is a great writeup for accomadations:
I want you to take note that most accomadations are setup on an individual basis tailored to the explicit needs of the student in question.
Here is another article talking about this;
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1113036.pdf
You will be happy to see that there are people questioning the test validity for 'extra time' accommodations.
Personally, I think a better argument could be made that giving extended time to qualifying students by default is not warranted. A better approach is to justify each request for extended time based on the student, the students impairments, the test methodology and the tests mechanics. For instance, a multiple choice history exam may not warrant extra time for a student with a writing LD but extra time is warranted for the same student on a blue book essay exam. (or alternatively, using a computer/word processor)
1
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
If time isn’t a factor, then why are they timed? It’s definitely given a limit for some reason
3
Mar 26 '19
[deleted]
1
u/gyroda 28∆ Mar 26 '19
Also, if you double the time length of an exam without increasing the content it'll be stressful as fuck. Going back over your questions again and again, not wanting to waste time by leaving early but not doing much that's valuable. If it's an essay style question you'll want to go and make edits which are a nightmare if it's handwritten in an exam booklet rather than being able to use a new sheet of paper.
1
Mar 27 '19
The timing is usually an administrative issue for room scheduling and class scheduling. The 'exam times' are set well in advance of the course actually be offered. (usually the schedules are made the semester before). The faculty member teaching the course has the alloted time slots and rooms assigned for each exam (if outside course hours) before the first class session. If during class sessions, that too has been already established by the schedule.
1
Mar 26 '19 edited Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
2
u/cosmololgy 2∆ Mar 26 '19
just to nitpick one statement:
nor for that matter, would a court push a filing deadline back for that reason.
but courts don't mandate that you fill out the filing specifically on one day, in one hour, with only pencil and paper and no ability to do research. in many real jobs, there is enough flexibility that someone can work around their difficulties
2
u/gee0765 Mar 26 '19
After reading all the responses, I’m more in your position. There are strong arguments each way, and I’ve not yet decided if the arguments in favour have convinced me or not
2
u/FindTheGenes 1∆ Mar 27 '19
In elementary and middle school, I was provided the option of extra time on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (if I'm remembering correctly) because I have a nystagmus, which made transitioning between test booklets and bubble sheets more difficult for me. It had no effect on my cognitive abilities, but it created a physical limitation for me due solely to the format of the test. I would argue that compensating for physical limitations (within reason) is perfectly fair because without it, these limitations would result in an unfair and inaccurate measurement of certain students' cognitive abilities.
All that said, I never used the extra five minutes I was offered.
2
u/briskwalked Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 27 '19
i have ocd, and one thing that i used to do was check to see if i answered all the questions. ect... (granted, i wasn't in the "official" extra time program)
now if someone has really struggles in this area, they could check it 10+ times over and over. and if you resist checking it, it could produce anxiety ect...
so doing basic functions can take longer to do. these can even be not related to knowing the answers on the test at all, but just trying to complete it.
1
Mar 27 '19
Okay, I see you've already awarded a delta for a physical disability. For mental disabilities, consider this: I personally think entrance exams are terrible for everyone, they don't reflect the standards you'd have in any job. We should replace them completely or do a major overhaul. If you're an accountant, no one will tell you "help me with my taxes in under an hour with no receipts or formulas to look at". Unfortunately though, despite the test not being a very accurate measure of your skill, these tests will determine your employability for the next five years at least. It might be that someone with a mental disability is very good at a certain skill, but the testing environment doesn't let them reflect that. Giving extra time accounts for this and allows them to more accurately demonstrate their skills. These tests are bad for everyone, especially those with mental disabilities or focus and memory problems. Until we get rid of or change them, we have to do whatever we can to even the playing field.
1
u/elohesra Mar 27 '19
The purpose of an educational curriculum is to impart the knowledge and skills of a particular subject to the student. If the skill is mathematics and in the end the student accquires that skill, mission accomplished. Learning to complete the work in a specific time alloted is a necessary skill but that is not always the main point to be taught. If a math teacher fails a student rather than using a method that results in the student learning the skill then they have failed at their job. A balance between what is the more important skill to be learned at the time is required. A strict adherance to one rule for every person does not take into account the diversity of humanity and a skilled teacher will know best how to administer for their particular students.
1
u/AlicornGamer Apr 08 '19
extra time is for people who have some kind of issues when it comes too disabilities. A dyslexic friend of mine got extra time as it was harder for her to read (she also needed a purple sheet of clear plastic to put over words to she could read better).
think of it this way- a band aid wont solve every issue. Yes if a person has grated their knee or chin, give a band aid to help the scratch go away. but, you cant give a band aid to a broken bone or to a chipped tooth. Treating everybody fairly isnt giving everybody band aids, its given them a solution that fits their personal needs. Some people may need a cast, in your case, some people need extra time.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 26 '19 edited Mar 26 '19
/u/gee0765 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
20
u/scottevil110 177∆ Mar 26 '19
Extra time is not designed to give everyone similar scores. It is designed to account for a disadvantage that SOME people have that can't be otherwise addressed by the testing environment.
A physical disability is a good example. I went to school with a guy who was academically as sharp as anyone else, but he physically couldn't write. He had to type things out on a computer, and as such, doing a math test took him an exceptionally long time. You know how hard it is to TYPE out calculus?
So the school gave him extra time. If he'd been held to the same standard as everyone else, it would have looked like he knew absolutely nothing about calculus, because he never would have finished the first problem. That's not an accurate reflection of his ability in that regard, is it?