The system of accommodating learning disabilities is a grifts, I had a few while always being a strong tester who tended to finish tests early. The “accommodation” I always got was extra time on top of a few more I never asked for. Extra time in particular was given out like candy for no reason. Harvard students having “learning disabilities” is a fucking joke, how delusional must one be to think that those admitted into Harvard are MORE disabled than most students at learning?

Why is somebody deemed somebody to have a weakness in learning in one particular area that makes them “learning disabled”? Why aren’t students who just aren’t as smart as other students considered “learning disabled” and given extra time on tests? But if you’re called dyslexic or dysgraphic or have dyscalculia you’re disabled and deserve not just accommodations (Which I wouldn’t be opposed to) but extra time on every test even if on the whole you smoke the other students?

They are beyond questioning and any teacher who does is likely to have their heads chopped off for hating and not believing disabled people despite not being an expert in disability. Which pretends these accommodations were given out in the first place due to some rigorous criteria.

Learning disabilities are a type of neurodevelopmental disorder in which a student that is of otherwise average of above average intelligence struggle with a specific type of material, commonly reading (dyslexia) or basic math (dyscalculia). The most effective treatment is early remediation, in which students in primary education are identified and given extra lessons and exercises on their weakness to help make them more well rounded so they do not struggle later in their education. This is super effective.

I can tell your frustrated with accommodations. I think your arguments against accommodations would be a lot stronger if you knew more about them. I think you might have some good points inside, but your frustration and ignorance prevent them from being compelling. I encourage you to do more reading, but let me point out a few mistakes in your post.

* You seem to mistakenly associate a learning disability with low intelligence. A person cannot have a learning disability and be below average in intelligence by definition. Struggling to learn how to read while being average or above average in every other subject is different than strugglingly to learn everything. The more a student struggles to learn to read while excelling at everything else, the more likely they are to be diagnosed. This means very intelligent students with a learning disability are more likely to be diagnosed than average students with the same disability.

* Extra time on test is an accommodation.

* Accommodations are not being handed out like candy for no reason. Anyone can buy candy. Accommodations require a documented disability.

* Many standardized test accommodations are very appropriate, such as blind people being offered a braille version of the test, or people with poor motor control having someone else physically fill in scantron bubbles.

* A student can be disabled based on low intelligence. It's not called a learning disability, because it's fundamentally a different thing.

That is not how it works in the real world. Affluent parents go doctor shopping to get learning disability diagnoses for their children. This has been going on for decades (I saw it with some of my classmates when I was in school) and the friendly doctors are well known in those circles.

I am not claiming that learning disabilities aren't real or that students who legitimately have those conditions don't deserve some accommodations. But the reality is that the current system is totally broken and discriminatory.

I read extreme statements like this sand ask where is the proof?

Not because I don't believe it but if these things are well known, why isn't some clickbait journalist all over it?

Hi anxiety higher status parents (professors, doctors, etc.) with kids who aren't Einstein go doctor shopping and waste district time constantly to get their kids testing advantages even though their kids are often totally typical kids with 110ish IQs. Special Ed at the local district is sick of them because it wastes so much time and money and takes away resources from the kids who actually need. (Though many of these parents do cause their kids to develop actual real anxiety disorders...)

>A person cannot have a learning disability and be below average in intelligence by definition.

Very aware of this, which essentially means that learning disabilities are a privilege for kids who are ALREADY ADVANTAGED over the other students, and yet a child with a 120IQ and dysgraphia gets to take 50% more time on their test than a kid with 80IQ basically without question, and if they press the issue they can probably get double time. That's the entire issue.

You know, because that's fair. It's an "accommodation" for a student who has already gotten higher grades than another student to one day be pulled into a doctors office, have it explained that they have this horrible problem, and now get 50% more time on tests than somebody they were already a solid grade point ahead of, a child who statistically we can predict will live their entire lives with higher socioeconomic status and higher quality of life already! Such EQUITY! It's so reflective of the real world too where if you take twice as long to finish work as another employee after being accommodated, your employer will pat you on the back and say "Attaboy!"

Also want to add that getting a formal certificate for learning disabilities is expensive. From what I heard, an ADHD test costs a couple of thousand USD, which could mean a lot to low income families.

I am glad someone pointed this out. I don't know the percentage but a lot of students game their GPA in school too. From pushing professors to give group assignments to using mental health days to claiming to have learning disabilities, these are all tools they have including cheating. Professors don't usually change their homework assignments every time they offer a course and online sites sell the answers. Professors know but they can't risk giving students below an A-. It causes a shit storm.

I actually think this suggests it would be beneficial to just eliminate time limits on standardized tests. There is no inherent need to make time pressure the hard part of the exam. I’ve always thought it reflects a kind of laziness in the test design, and establishes a metric (thinking fast/under pressure) that isn’t really well aligned with the traits that help the most in real academic pursuits.