learning disabled

[AKSWulfe]

When I was in middle school/high school, I couldn't pay attention worth a damn in class.

Either I had ADD, or the teachers and subjects just bored the hell outta me. Unless it was interesting, which it rarely was, I didn't pay attention.

Never got any special magical drugs to make me pay attention, I just dealt with it. Never got any extra time on a test either.

I knew a couple of kids who got extra time on their tests because they were "learning disabled".... and that was on every test or quiz in school not just those SATs (which have already been admitted to being useless)

It was abused as hell at the 2 schools I went to, I highly doubt it's any different anywhere else.
-SW

[midnight Target]

I taught special ed for 5 years. I gotta say though that Laz has a point. Time should not be a factor in these tests unless we are testing mental agility. The time constraint is probably due more to the logistics of completing a long test in a single afternoon, than to assisting in the measurement of the capabilities of the individual.

[Kieran]

Bingo, MT.

Do I think people abuse the rule? Of course, people abuse every rule you make. You do however need to look at the bigger picture here- if you are going to effectively rule college out for people that legitimately need more time on the test, then you run a higher probability of having these same people supported by public funds- your tax dollars. Tell me again how this makes good sense?

[AKSWulfe]

Get rid of SATs???

A few colleges have already stopped accepting them...
-SW

[midnight Target]

Obviously there are black and white sides to this issue. Some abuses occur, and some deserving students gain access to an education that might not have otherwise. Its kinda tough to decide where that line should be drawn, so I guess I would rather err on the inclusive side.

[Kieran]

There's more to the story than this, though. What is a standardized test after all? It is merely a set number of questions that are given to students all around the country in a format agreed upon by all. There are time restraints, but they are arbitrarily set, and as you guess these restraints have more to do with logistics than anything else. You could argue that decision-making ability is measured as a byproduct of the timing, but if it is I doubt it is used by any university.

For those that tested using SAT or ACT...

1. Did it test your musical intelligence?
2. Did it test your spatial intelligence?
3. Did it test your ability to problem solve?
4. Did it test your ability to socialize and work in groups?
5. Did it test your communication, both aural and written?
6. Did it test your artistic intelligence?
7. Did it test your mechanical ability- that ability to look at any machine and understand how it works and how to fix it when it is broken?

What it did test:
1. Written communication
2. Math computation

My problem with these tests is that schools use them for an entry ticket even if the tests don't test the skills the schools need. More than that, what of the issue of racial and socioeconomic bias?

Believe me, time is the least of my concerns with these tests.

[Dago]

what is "learning disabled", is that what we used to call "dumb"?

No, but posting such a thing is what alot of us would call ignorant.

This is an interesting thead, more than most in that you can tell who is a not very well informed on a subject (and probably not too bright), and who has the knowledge to understand the issue.

Many very intelligent people suffer from some form of learning disability.  

Is the term "learning disabled" misused?  Possibly on isolated cases, but I would find it hard to believe its really widespread.  For one, why would somebody want to carry that label if it isnt true?  For another, someone you might think is just scamming might very well have problems you are completly unaware of.  Its not like they will advertise it on a day to day basis, and might work very hard to compensate.

I suggest before throwing out insults or making uninformed assumptions, people try and get familiar with a subject and in the future speak a little more from a position of knowledge and compassion.

Dago

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Dago
For one, why would somebody want to carry that label if it isnt true?  For another, someone you might think is just scamming might very well have problems you are completly unaware of.  Its not like they will advertise it on a day to day basis, and might work very hard to compensate.

I dunno... but the people I knew that were "learning disabled" were actually just lazy.
-SW

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Kieran
My problem with these tests is that schools use them for an entry ticket even if the tests don't test the skills the schools need. More than that, what of the issue of racial and socioeconomic bias?

 What about the issue of gender bias? More girls take SATs and the same number passes above average as boys, but among students achieving 800 SAT score there is 7.5 boys for every girl.

 It is obvious that girls belong to a different race and different socioeconomic class than their boy siblings raised in the same family.

 Or you can put the theory of "equal racial abilities" to the same crap heap as the long-discredited theory of "multiple intelligences".

 There are many cases where really intelligent people have some mental disorder that affects certain aspects of their learning - may be dozens, even hundreds.
 The millions that are shoehorned into that "learning-disabled category" are just plain dumb. You need an IQ of at least 100+ to graduate the high school without tricks - closer to 105. Half of the people (and allegedely 80+% of "diversity") are not that smart.

 miko

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Eagler
what  Montezuma said

just another well meaning warm and fuzzy equalizer which is being exploited & abused more than it is helping

someone take note of this day, for Eagler and that lazy ACLU panzy agreed on something!

-Sikboy

[Kieran]

I'd just like to know how he knows it is being abused more than it is being helpful.

Dago is correct. Parents resist having their kids labeled for the most part.

AK, people are people. If teachers don't handle the IEPs right, an LD student can learn to be lazy. The trick is setting the appropriate level of challenge, or making the proper adjustments to learning to compensate. Further, it is not possible to see all of what is going on in a student's mind, so assuming laziness is not a safe bet.

Put another way, you folks wouldn't call a blind or deaf person lazy and stupid, you would recognize their disability. Some disabilites are simply more difficult to detect, but are just as real as blindness and deafness.

And Eagler, think a moment... why not allow someone who is making an effort to do his/her best more time on a test? Isn't this someone that is doing everything in his/her power to improve him/herself? Isn't this far preferable to someone standing on the corner with his/her hand out?

Never, ever kick the legs out from under anyone trying to lift themselves up.

[AKSWulfe]

I'm not assuming... I knew these people.

If anything, it was an acquired disablility -> Laziness.

As for LD students getting more time on SATs... that just goes further to prove my point of how useless a test they are.
-SW

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Sikboy


someone take note of this day, for Eagler and that lazy ACLU panzy agreed on something!

-Sikboy

LOL

must be my "learning disorder" kicking in

[Eagler]

And Eagler, think a moment... why not allow someone who is making an effort to do his/her best more time on a test? Isn't this someone that is doing everything in his/her power to improve him/herself? Isn't this far preferable to someone standing on the corner with his/her hand out?

I agree but you can't grade them on the same scale as someone not given a boost.

Think of it as it applies to hiring someone
You pre test before employment
One guy takes an hour longer for whatever reason than the other one but both score about the same

who are you going to hire - considering you are paying them to accomplish a given task in a given time period??

[midnight Target]

If the criteria includes time, then you are correct Eagler. What we are talking about here however, is access to education. Once a thing is learned, it doesn't really matter how long it took to learn it. A learning disabled student might take 6 years to complete a course in engineering, yet still be a very good engineer.