Disabling Academic Standards: Learning Disabilities and Time-and-a-Half Testing

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Equal Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities, U.S. Code 42 (1990), Chapter 126, para. 12102, 1a. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-126

  2. 2.

    Ibid. 2a

  3. 3.

    National Center for Learning Disabilities, State of Learning Disabilities: Understanding the 1 in 5, Annual Report (2017), www.ncld.org/StateofLD

  4. 4.

    Though, see Singh v. George Washington University School of Medicine, 439 F.Supp.2d 8, 33 NDLR P 13 (D.D.C. 2006). The court ruled that the student plaintiff, who had been dismissed from medical school because of poor performance, did not have a learning disability as defined under ADA law.

  5. 5.

    American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (2013), 315.9.

  6. 6.

    “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance,” Code of Federal Regulations, title 34 (2000): Subtitle B, Chapter I, Part 104, Subpart E, sec. 104.44, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr104.html#E

  7. 7.

    Ibid. Also, in 104.44 Subsection C, we learn that tests must not reflect “the student's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure)” (emphasis mine). This presumably relates only to sensory, manual, or speaking skills and these are outside the scope of this paper.

  8. 8.

    Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 976 F.2d 791, 932 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1992 and 1991) (en banc).

  9. 9.

    Guckenberger v. Boston University, 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass. 1997, 1998).

  10. 10.

    Wong vs. Regents of the University of California, no. 98-15757 (9th Cir. 1999) and Wong vs. Regents of the University of California, 379 F. 3d 1097 (2004).

  11. 11.

    Breimhorst vs. Educational Testing Service, 3:99-cv-03387 (N.D. Cal.1999)

  12. 12.

    Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Law School Admissions Council (LSAC), 3:12-cv-01830-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2012-present)

  13. 13.

    Ellen B. Mandinach, Brent Bridgeman, Cara Cahalan-Laitusis, Catherine Trapani, “The Impact of Extended Time on SAT Test Performance” (The College Board: New York, 2005), 7-8.

  14. 14.

    “Extended Time Testing Accommodations for Students with Disabilities: Answers to Five Fundamental Questions.” Review of Educational Research 80, no. 4 (Dec., 2010): 611-638, 622.

  15. 15.

    Ibid. 624

  16. 16.

    Ibid. 632

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua F. Drake.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drake, J.F. Disabling Academic Standards: Learning Disabilities and Time-and-a-Half Testing. Acad. Quest. 31, 304–312 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-018-9718-0

Download citation