In an attempt to create a fairer educational environment, the provision of extra time for tests has, ironically, introduced a large amount of new problems and unfairness. While this accommodation was created to level the playing field for students with learning disabilities, affluent families have exploited this tool, undermining its intended purpose. Rather than addressing the genuine needs of students with learning disabilities, extra-time provisions mask the real support these students require, perpetuating a system of inequality and unfairness.
The idea behind extra-time accommodations stems from a genuine intention to ensure equal opportunities for students with disabilities. Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, schools, colleges and other educational institutions are required to provide extra time for students with documented disabilities and disorders, like dyslexia, ADHD and severe anxiety. The goal was to create a level playing field so all students could show their knowledge without being disadvantaged by their disabilities.
However, the reality of extra-time accommodations has greatly changed from this ideal. Analysis of federal data reveals a troubling trend in which students from wealthy neighborhoods are far more likely to receive extra-time accommodations than their peers in lower-income areas. This difference is striking because disabilities can affect families of all income levels. As New York Times columnists Dana Goldstein and Jugal Patel point out, “Students in every ZIP code are dealing with anxiety, stress and depression as academic competition grows ever more cutthroat. But the sharp disparity in accommodations raises the question of whether families in moneyed communities are taking advantage of the system, or whether they simply have the means to address a problem that less affluent families cannot.” This system, rather than creating fairness, exacerbates existing inequalities.
The college admissions scandal, “Operation Varsity Blues,” highlights the flaws in the application of extra-time accommodations, in which wealthy families exploited the system to gain an unfair advantage in college admissions. One of the methods employed involved securing extra time for tests through fraudulent means. William Singer, a key figure in the scandal, was recorded admitting that “’all the wealthy families’ were shopping for diagnoses,” insinuating that diagnoses can be bought and bluntly acknowledging that “the playing field is not fair.” The scandal not only exposed the corruption within the education system but also underscored how such abuses place honest students with legitimate needs and who cannot afford diagnoses at a disadvantage. Those who truly need extra time are now competing with students who have gamed the system, skewing the fairness of the process.
Consequently, extra time accommodations are granted too easily and readily. Educational institutions are often hesitant to deny requests, perhaps for fear of appearing discriminatory. As Forbes columnist George Leef highlights, there is a tendency among decision-makers in higher education to approve applications for accommodations. Only a few schools use a committee to evaluate students’ evidence. This may be the result of avoiding accusations of bias against disabled students, even when the validity of the request isn’t strong. While intended to protect students’ rights, this approach can result in a flood of potentially unjustified requests and overshadow the true needs of students with learning disabilities. The fear of being labeled as discriminatory has led to a lax review process — accommodations are granted more out of a desire to avoid controversy than a genuine assessment of need, which is lacking in the first place. Giving extra time to a large amount of students without proper checking leads to an unfair testing system.
In this system, the real difficulties faced by students with disabilities are hidden as a general extra-time accommodation doesn’t always meet their individual needs. Time extensions only help students with the short-term issue at hand. Instead of this short-term solution, it would be much more effective and helpful to the ultimate success of these students to implement early interference methods that directly work with their disability, whether that be bettering time management, reinforcing organization skills or learning effective methods to focus on a task at hand. Extra time can not only be unhelpful to students but could be quite harmful against learning to manage their disability in the long term. Students who aren’t taught effective methods now will most likely rely on the extra time given to them.
It is time we reevaluate the current extra-time accommodation system. While the intention behind these accommodations is honest, the execution has been flawed, leading to a system that fails to support students effectively and fairly. Instead of just extending test times, we should focus on providing meaningful academic support and intervention tailored to the individual needs of students with genuine learning disabilities. This approach would address the root causes of academic challenges and ensure that all students receive the assistance they truly require.
The extra-time accommodation system needs a big change. By addressing the underlying issues and implementing more effective support measures, we can create a fairer and more equitable educational environment for all students. It is only through such changes that we can ensure that our educational system and the ADA live up to its promise of fairness and equal opportunity.
Rebecca Szlechter is a junior majoring in psychology.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.