Education Next asks the question, what was the result of ETS dropping the "flags" for accommodated SATS?
When the College Board announced, in the summer of 2002, that it would stop “flagging” the test scores of students who were given special accommodations for the SAT, the gold standard exam for college admission, disability advocates were thrilled. “A triumphant day for millions of people with dyslexia and other disabilities,” exclaimed Thomas Viall, the executive director of the International Dyslexia Association. “With the ‘scarlet letter’ gone, people with disabilities are given the chance to succeed, based on their abilities”...Indeed, the scarlet letter disappeared in October of 2003, but not everyone was so sanguine about the possible consequences. Miriam Freedman, an attorney specializing in issues of testing, standards, and students with disabilities, expressed the concern of many academics and practitioners (“Disabling the SAT,” Education Next, Fall 2003) that the deflagging decision would drive requests for special accommodations skyward as more students saw an opportunity to secure an advantage without anyone knowing it.
Ms. Freeman was not the only one predicting disaster - but did that disaster come true?
Surprisingly, now that detailed 2004 SAT results have become available, it appears that growth in special accommodations is not the real problem. As Figure 1 shows, dropping the flag did not accelerate the already steep climb in the numbers of test-takers given special accommodation—it appears to have reversed it. What happened?As it turns out, the College Board, worried about the rush to accommodation, tightened the criteria high-school counselors and other professionals were to apply when granting waivers...
Ah. So the flags were dropped - but the College Board made it much tougher to get the accommodations. Did this change stop the expected surge of non-disabled students seeking fake diagnoses - or is it now the case that only the more well-off students can afford all the doctor visits that are required?
As the criteria for special accommodations permission has tightened, there are clear signs that the social composition of those given such permission has been altered. By abolishing any stigma that might come with a flagged test, while tightening access to special accommodations, the College Board has given new opportunities to the strategic, while leaving behind the less savvy and less financially well-endowed.There is no statistical smoking gun indicating that the sophisticated are being given special treatment. But the test-score results presented in Figures 2 and 3 should give College Board officials cause for concern.
The test score results show that scores increased for students granted accommodations, and only for those students. What's more, College Board data indicates that examinees who are awarded special accommodations are 84% white, as opposed to 68% for standard examinees. If one wanted to make the argument (as Education Next apparently does) that the wealthier students are now taking advantage of the no-flagging rule to get accommodated tests, these data could certainly be used to support that argument.
What I said in 2003 seems like it applies now, even more so:
Just think about those "high-powered" parents who are so eager to have their kids labeled as disabled. These parents have $3000 to spend, and yet they can't manage to find tutors for their kids so that they can learn to take the SAT under normal timing conditions? Am I alone in finding it odd that in one generation, we have swung from the label of "disabled" being a stigma to that same label being something that is seen as desirable, and sought after? Do these parents really have so little respect for the test that they're willing to essentially help their kids cheat? Or are they so desperate to think of their kids as "special" that any means of setting them apart from the general population will do?Posted by kswygert at May 13, 2005 11:58 AM