A great question. The article does a good job of answering it…. in real time (while ignoring the 2003 back story when these big companies (the College Board and the ACT) stopped “flagging” test results given with non standard accommodations. See my 2003 tale about this (what I believe to be a) giant misstep by these companies.

Here’s a key sentence: “Particularly glaring in the 204-page indictment is that the majority of the children, whose parents were charged Tuesday, had seamlessly secured disability accommodations on their standardized tests…”

Glaring indeed. As a school attorney, I’ve been writing about this waiting-to-happen-scandal for years.

The accommodations loophole (started in 2003 when the SAT and ACT stopped “flagging” test results given under nonstandard conditions)…. has been an invitation to misuse. This story confirms that, in some circles, it’s become a racket.

But even this angle of the scandal misses another big and important story. My chief concern has been that the use of non-standard accommodations (like 50% extra time or 100% or having the right to take the test over two days or whatever) leads to tests that are no longer standardized. Timed tests are, by definition, supposed to be TIMED. Thus, they are no longer vaild.

So, honestly, what is the point? Why are we still taking these costly and anxiety producing tests–when they are no longer standardized…… and their results cannot be honestly interpreted or compared from student to student.

So, the obvious question becomes: when will these companies throw in the towel and stop timing any of these tests?

Not so fast….. because, of course, there’s no free lunch. When they do stop timing these tests, the tests will (undoubtedly) be more costly as they’ll need more proctors, but most importantly, the tests will be easier and less anxiety-producing. And again, we will be witnessing another notch in the lowering of standards in our schools and colleges…. Pick your poison! Another story for another day….

Of course, these companies could go back to flagging test results given under non-standard conditions, a perfectly valid and legal option–for which the companies would need evidence of why these tests are timed. Why? Why? Why? We still don’t have a clear answer to that basic question.

In the meantime, please see my old 2003 story–when the SAT and ACT stopped flagging test results given with “nonstandard” accommodations, most often extended time. It’s a sad tale–started perhaps with good intentions–that has lead to misuse (now, even abuse), loss of trust in these tests, and unfairness—among its many unfortunate side effects.
Here’s the link:

About Miriam

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman, JD, MA—an expert in public education, focused on special education law— is a lawyer, author, speaker, consultant, and reformer. For more than 35 years, Miriam worked with educators, parents, policy makers, and citizens to translate complex legalese into plain English and focus on good practices for children. Now, she focuses her passion on reforming special education, with her new book, Special Education 2.0—Breaking Taboos to Build a NEW Education Law. Presentations include those at the AASA Conference, Orange County (CA), Boston College (MA), CADRE (OR), and the Fordham Institute (DC). Her writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Education Week, Education Next, Hoover Digest, The University of Chicago Law Review on line,, and The Atlantic Monthly on line.

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *