When 20 percent of Harvard and Brown students and 38 percent of Stanford’s are eligible for accommodations even as just 3–4 percent of students in community colleges are, we have a crisis of trust in testing, fairness, and equity. Designed to be rare, accommodations now seem to be given out like candy, especially to those who know how to press for them—mostly the wealthy. Where are the defenders of academic standards, equality of opportunity, and valid assessment? While much discussion centers on elite colleges, the situation is similar in the K–12 arena.
Accommodations are intended to level the playing field for students with disabilities. They change how students access instruction or demonstrate knowledge or skills. Properly administered, testing accommodations provide equitable access without—here’s the key—fundamentally altering the substance of what is taught or tested.
Common examples of testing accommodations include extended time, large print, and quiet testing rooms. Extra time is, by far, the most commonly used—and controversial—accommodation.
While the law requires reasonable accommodations, it does not require fundamentally altering a test or lowering standards. For many years, a “flag” placed on score reports informed readers (e.g., admissions officers, parents) that a test was taken with extended time such as time and a half, twice the time, or more—a practice long approved by the courts. Otherwise, a test reader could not know whether scores of two candidates are comparable, as there is no way to know if they took the test under the same standard conditions. For reasons explained below, flags have not been used on the SAT, ACT, and many other tests since 2003. As a result, test users’ ability to assess the meaning of test results and to make fair and reasonable decisions for all students has been compromised.
How did we get here? Two catalysts stand out. The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and later amendments broadened the definition of disability to include more people. And as part of a 2002 settlement of a threatened lawsuit by Disability Rights Advocates, which claimed that the College Board’s flagging practice on its standardized admissions tests discriminated against students with disabilities, the Board agreed to stop flagging its score reports altogether.
It’s important to remember that the flag described the score, not the student. Seventy-nine percent of college admissions officers at the time opposed the Board’s change. Yet within two weeks, the ACT followed suit. By 2003, these and many other tests stopped using flags. I warned then that this settlement would increase the use of accommodations and erode trust in standardized testing. It has.
Standardized tests derive their legitimacy and validity from their standardization, making results comparable among test takers. Test validity requires that tests actually measure what they purport to measure and report results accurately. Before 2003, these tests were designed to measure student performance on timed tests. If test results are skewed by extra time, an accommodation that may affect results, those results are no longer comparable to other test takers’ results. Note, though, that other sorts of accommodations—such as large print or a quiet room—do not raise issues of comparability or validity.
Research has shown that giving students, whether they are disabled or not, extra time for standardized tests tends to raise their scores. This is especially so among medium- and high-ability students who are vying for entrance to elite institutions. Hence administering tests like the SAT or ACT, which are designed to be timed tests, with extended time for some people but not others creates a different test. It obscures fair and reliable comparisons between standard and nonstandard test administrations. What if we gave some runners more time to run the “four-minute mile?” That, too, would be a different race.
Over these last two decades, the increased use of accommodations and unflagged test results has contributed to compromised standards in our schools and questionable test results. Interestingly, we’ve seen that most colleges no longer require either of these “college entrance” exams.
While much of today’s attention and hand-wringing is focused on students and parents who request accommodations, I believe the focus should be elsewhere—on the standards and tests themselves. As a school attorney, I was often asked if parents or students were abusing accommodations. In my view, that is not the issue. As I see it, if test makers, schools, and evaluators offer a “benefit,” why blame people for availing themselves of that benefit? I believe that the central failing lies with test-makers, schools, evaluators, etc.—the institutions and professionals that are supposed to build and administer valid tests and set standards.
It’s obviously easier to say yes to a student or parent who requests extra time than to say no and face their ire or a threatened lawsuit. Yet, those yeses end up undermining valid tests. The loss of reliable and valid test results is worrisome in many ways, as we the public and test users (like educators, parents, students themselves, and admissions officers) rely on institutions to uphold standards that individuals can’t on their own. Ultimately, without valid standards, we lose faith and trust in the system. And here we are.
I suggest three options to return to comparable and valid test reporting.
The first option is for tests to allow as much time (within practical constraints) as test takers need or wish to take. This option makes clear that a test’s design and purpose is not based on time constraints and that its results will be standardized, comparable, and valid. For example, such tests would not evaluate the speed with which test takers work, how they fare under pressure, and their knowledge fluency—that is, if they can apply knowledge quickly and automatically. If that is so, no one needs that extra time accommodation!
The second option—which may be uniquely attractive in this era of choice and personalized learning—lets all test-takers choose how they wish to take a test. They can take the test within standard time limits and have their results unflagged or take it with extended time and have their results flagged. Presumably, test takers who have test anxiety or are poor test takers—whether disabled or not, including those who choose not to use the accommodations offered to them—will choose this option. This option undercuts the discrimination claim, as flags will not identify students with disabilities.
The third option reverts to the pre-2003 approach for test takers and score reports. Flags were used to notify test users that a test was taken with extended time due to accommodations. As discussed above, this arrangement was abandoned by many test makers almost a quarter of a century ago.
Today’s national conversation about accommodations suggests a growing unease with their apparent overuse in many communities. Even with good intentions, this situation erodes standards, fairness, trust, and notions of excellence. In compounding the advantage of privileged families, it also appears to worsen equity, as the use of accommodations is highest for students at elite institutions and not widely used by others.
The goal of any of these options is to restore test comparability and validity—key elements of standardized testing and the reason we bother with these tests in the first place.
If we want to restore confidence in standards in schools and standardized tests, we must be willing to establish, defend, and protect them. Why aren’t we? Regarding standardized testing, where are today’s defenders of valid tests, fairness, equity, and honesty? The powerful institutions in the testing arenas—test makers, schools, colleges—that are expected to create and uphold valid testing programs need to reassert their responsibility. Once they do so, we can again have confidence that score reports are comparable and valid, bring accommodations use back to credible levels, and restore trust in those assessments.
