Thanks for the blog and the interesting comments following it. I would simply add:
1. The issue I presented involves the WHAT before the WHO. The College Board (and the ACT) need to clarify once and for all what the role of timing is in the SAT and the ACT. That is, are these tests of speed and efficiency, or other attributes related to timing, or is timing merely done for administrative convenience or another ancillary reason. At its core, the issue is: is extended time an accommodation (that provides equal access for all students and does not fundamentally alter the test) or is it a modification (that fundamentally changes the test)?
After we what the WHAT is, then we can focus on the WHO–the students who take the test and how we should set up the test so they have access to it AND it remains valid.
In reading the wonderful comments, I was gratified to see that some “got” this focus on the WHAT–while others focused on the WHO. After all these years of, what I believe are flawed testing administrations, it’s a tough sell to try to get us back on track to validity.
2. In terms of who benefits from extended time, as I recall, the early data I studied–back before the College Board lifted flags on the SAT in 2002/2003–showed that the students who benefited from extended time (50% or more) on the SAT were the top students. This may be counter intuitive–but that’s what the data showed.
3. I would love to get actual numbers and percentages of students who take the SAT (and ACT) with extended time, but so far have been unable to do that.
4. So long as we keep testing students, the saga continues. Let’s hope we keep tests valid. If we don’t, why are we testing?