Comments on: TWIF (Part 5): The Scam of “Higher Test Scores” http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2005/08/twif-part-5-the-scam-of-higher-test-scores/ reb•e•lu•tion (reb’el lu shen) n. a teenage rebellion against low expectations Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:24:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Brett Harris http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2005/08/twif-part-5-the-scam-of-higher-test-scores/#comment-17 Brett Harris Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:26:00 +0000 http://www.therebelution.com/blog/?p=18#comment-17 The allowance made for students with learning disabilities (despite the legitimacy of the allowance in certain situations) could be considered the most significant change to the SAT. At least in its ability to mask poor performance. You see, prior to September of 2002 (I'm pretty sure it was 2002) only 2% of students qualified as "learning disabled." Those that were granted extra time had an asterik on their tests to inform colleges that they receive special accommodation. However, under pressure from activists for the disabled, ETS moved eliminated the asterik starting September of 2002. This meant that those who can obtain a suitable "learning disability" diagnosis could take almost 200% longer on the test and college admission officers would be none the wiser. The "diagnosis shopping" that ensued became so flagrant that the <I>New York Times</I> ran a front page story on it in September of 2002. (Jane Gross, "Paying For A Disability Diagnosis to Gain Time on College Boards," The New York Times, September 25, 2002) The allowance made for students with learning disabilities (despite the legitimacy of the allowance in certain situations) could be considered the most significant change to the SAT. At least in its ability to mask poor performance.

You see, prior to September of 2002 (I’m pretty sure it was 2002) only 2% of students qualified as “learning disabled.” Those that were granted extra time had an asterik on their tests to inform colleges that they receive special accommodation.

However, under pressure from activists for the disabled, ETS moved eliminated the asterik starting September of 2002. This meant that those who can obtain a suitable “learning disability” diagnosis could take almost 200% longer on the test and college admission officers would be none the wiser.

The “diagnosis shopping” that ensued became so flagrant that the New York Times ran a front page story on it in September of 2002. (Jane Gross, “Paying For A Disability Diagnosis to Gain Time on College Boards,” The New York Times, September 25, 2002)

]]> By: Brett Harris http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2005/08/twif-part-5-the-scam-of-higher-test-scores/#comment-219 Brett Harris Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.therebelution.com/blog/?p=18#comment-219 The allowance made for students with learning disabilities (despite the legitimacy of the allowance in certain situations) could be considered the most significant change to the SAT. At least in its ability to mask poor performance. You see, prior to September of 2002 (I'm pretty sure it was 2002) only 2% of students qualified as "learning disabled." Those that were granted extra time had an asterik on their tests to inform colleges that they receive special accommodation. However, under pressure from activists for the disabled, ETS moved eliminated the asterik starting September of 2002. This meant that those who can obtain a suitable "learning disability" diagnosis could take almost 200% longer on the test and college admission officers would be none the wiser. The "diagnosis shopping" that ensued became so flagrant that the New York Times ran a front page story on it in September of 2002. (Jane Gross, "Paying For A Disability Diagnosis to Gain Time on College Boards," The New York Times, September 25, 2002) The allowance made for students with learning disabilities (despite the legitimacy of the allowance in certain situations) could be considered the most significant change to the SAT. At least in its ability to mask poor performance.

You see, prior to September of 2002 (I’m pretty sure it was 2002) only 2% of students qualified as “learning disabled.” Those that were granted extra time had an asterik on their tests to inform colleges that they receive special accommodation.

However, under pressure from activists for the disabled, ETS moved eliminated the asterik starting September of 2002. This meant that those who can obtain a suitable “learning disability” diagnosis could take almost 200% longer on the test and college admission officers would be none the wiser.

The “diagnosis shopping” that ensued became so flagrant that the New York Times ran a front page story on it in September of 2002. (Jane Gross, “Paying For A Disability Diagnosis to Gain Time on College Boards,” The New York Times, September 25, 2002)

]]>