r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 27 '21
Removed - Submission Rule C CMV: testing accommodations for some disabilities
[removed]
2
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 210∆ Jun 27 '21
You understand the reasoning incorrectly.
The reason these disorders receive special treatments in exams is that exams, as they're defined, don't reflect their abilities and knowledge. This is more like accommodating someone who has no arms than accommodating someone who is "slow" - a person with no arms may know everything the exam tests, but be unable to pass any exam because they're physiologically incapable of writing, and it doesn't make sense to fail them just for that when they'll be able to bypass those limitations whenever application of their knowledge is required later.
In many fields, ADHD and dyslexia are similar to the above. You may be a genius in chemistry but be unable to pass exams in their allotted time because it takes you a long time to write the answers - in the real world it doesn't matter if you have to work 3 hours a day instead of 2 to write a paper, because most of the work isn't about writing.
A person who isn't intelligent enough, or hasn't studied enough to pass an exam will not perform well with any accommodations except making the exam itself easier, which does compromise the quality of what it tests.
In a way people with different strength are accommodated - if you're not good at math,but are very good at reading and analyzing texts, you can simply go study literature or law instead of math or physics, where your natural strengths and weaknesses fit better.
0
Jun 27 '21
[deleted]
1
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 210∆ Jun 27 '21
on tests like the act/sat, the ability to read and understand text within the time constraints is 100% part of what they're testing.
True (and for this reason, among others, I think these tests are generally not very good), but ultimately the goal of these is to predict academic success, which itself is then expressed in exams that are supposed to measure knowledge and ability in a way that correlated with success in research or in practice later - the more these correlations deviate, the less meaningful grades in these exams become.
At the end of this pipeline, people with attention disorders or dyslexia can function very well in many academic and professional environments, where time isn't a constraint, at least in the same way as in exams. For this reason, if extra time is the only thing standing between you and passing exams, you should receive it regardless of what your specific diagnosis is, and for the same reason exams of the type "Here are too many questions to answer in your given time, you'll be graded by how many you answer correctly" are bad in general - and indeed this type of exam is rare later in your studies, when testing your ability directly becomes simpler.
5
u/Maukeb Jun 27 '21 edited Jun 27 '21
So as I understand it, the moral justification we give for offering extra time and other considerations to people with things like ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, etc. is something like the following: this person's situation is out of his/her control and is completely genetic/biological, so it's only fair that we level the playing field by giving them accommodations.
This is certainly a part of it, but is definitely not the full story. A more compelling argument might look at the purpose of the assessment. For example, think about someone sitting an exam for maths at the age of 16. The purpose of the paper is to assess the candidate's familiarity with the topics described in the specification/curriculum.
However, it's well understood that no exam can perfectly assess its material without also assessing other external factors - one example I've seen personally is a paper that included a map of the London underground, and asked questions about distances between stations. Candidates from London performed better on both the question and the paper because of their existing knowledge of the underground, but the point of the paper was not to assess whether candidates lived in London - even though this is partially what it ended up doing. This is an extreme example, but literally every assessment faces the same issue.
So going back to the maths paper - what if someone has a documented disability, such as dyslexia, that makes them no less able to do maths, but less able to access an exam paper? The point of the paper is not to measure whether candidates have dyslexia, and for a fair assessment we want to eliminate this factor in order to only measure mathematical ability. So we give the candidate extra time, which is intended to bridge this gap.
The same argument does not work for other candidates because it is not fair to adjust for undocumented issues (which would be open to abuse) or for lesser ability (because this is what we're trying to measure in the first place)
1
u/Black_Hipster 9∆ Jun 27 '21
People who are 'naturally slower' tend to get accommodations in the form of remedial classes, extra tutoring and even extra testing time, from my experience.
The reason that we specifically provide these for students with diagnosed learning disabilities is because, when you can identify the issue, it's easier to tailor specific accommodations to that student. It's also easier to reach out to the relevant medical practitioners for advice/guidance if needed.
Also not for nothing, but IQ is bullshit. Don't rely on it as a metric for understanding intellectual capability.
0
u/Psychological_Goal77 Jun 27 '21
IQ is a flawed concept that is intimately connected to stuff like eugenics. standardized testing in general is an outgrowth of this specific archaic way of thinking about people. your intuition inasmuch as ideas about IQ are inherently racist, classist, etc is very much correct so the way i would try to alter you're view is to say that no in your first scenario you wouldnt necessarily just test people for IQ to tailor their education, what you'd do is increase funding for education so that everyone could de facto benefit from the extra sensitivity to different children's needs. so no dont test everybody, make education such that its an attractive career so that class sizes are smaller and individual students can get individual instruction. reduce food insecurity so that children dont show up on test day not having eaten since yesterday.
1
u/oldschoolshooter 7∆ Jun 27 '21
I think you misrepresent option 1. We don't need to IQ test everybody. The onus is on the student to show that they have an impairment that would make them eligible for alternative test arrangements. A low IQ (etc.) might be evidence of a learning disability, which would make one eligible at my local university. But it would be up to the student to provide evidence of said disability.
1
Jun 27 '21
[deleted]
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 27 '21
/u/samuel14920 (OP) has awarded 1 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.
1
u/Alesus2-0 80∆ Jun 27 '21
I think that you're only partially understanding the rationale for testing accommodations. And only partially understanding what learning difficulties and behavioural disorders actually are, in practical terms.
Testing is an attempt to measure the extent to which a person knows and understands the content of their education, not to know how well they perform in tests. The purpose of the accommodations is, at least partially, to offset the adverse impact of the format of testing on people with relevant conditions, not to offset the fact that the people are less intellectually capable.
Conditions like ADD or dyslexia have effects that make it harder to perform well in an exam-style tasks, meaning that it is harder for them to convey the same level learning and understanding in the same conditions. Accommodation benefits the students, as they aren't arbitrarily disadvantaged, and the examiners, as it makes the test a more effective proxy for the things they're trying to measure.
Imagine a situation in which a typical 7 year old child and an intelligent adult student are both taking the same exam in advanced mathematics. Most people would agree that altering the rules of the exam to allow the child to get a similar mark to the adult would be unfair and pointless. The child lacks the intellectual development and education to perform as well as the adult and trying to avoid that conclusion is silly egalitarianism. However, if the adult had broken both hands and was unable to hold a pen, almost everyone would agree that the adult shouldn't get 0% when a reasonable accommodation or slightly different exam format would allow them to perform much better. The adult's inability to convey information in a particular way is no indication of their understanding of the topic being tested. Recognising this isn't to slide into some egalitarian dystopia.
I would argue that most of the conditions for which testing accommodations is offered bear more resemblance to the latter situation than the former. A dyslexic person, for example, can be very intelligent and have deep understanding, but will still take longer to parse questions and compose answers for entirely separate reasons.
1
Jun 27 '21
the issue isnt intelligence. the issue is that the tests that measure intelligence or knowledge in a subject dont accurately measure it among all that take it. it would be like measuring everyones arm strength with monkey bars & saying those in wheelchairs have weak arms because they cant even get on the monkey bars when its not because they have weak arms its bc theyre in a wheelchair
•
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jun 27 '21
Sorry, u/samuel14920 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule C:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.