President Trump’s pledge to eliminate the Education Department is welcome, but it won’t be enough to fix America’s schools. Federal laws intended to accommodate students with learning disabilities have for years allowed parents and schools in the country’s wealthiest enclaves to game the system by giving unfair advantages to the children of privilege.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires schools to offer examinations “in a place and manner accessible to persons with disabilities or offer alternative accessible arrangements for such individuals.” The law defines “disabilities” as conditions that impair “major life activities,” a category that Congress broadened in 2008 to include tasks such as reading, concentrating and thinking. Common learning disabilities include dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Students with accommodations are often given more time than other students to take exams. They are also sometimes allowed to use reference sheets or sit outside the classroom to avoid distraction, among other options.

Truly disabled students need support to help them succeed. But the system is ripe for abuse by those with the knowledge and means to manipulate it. A 2019 Journal investigation revealed that many wealthy parents pay thousands of dollars for their children to be tested for learning disabilities by private psychologists, who have an incentive to give clients a diagnosis that will confer an advantage. At public high schools in wealthy areas, the percentage of students with access to accommodations is 4.2%, compared with 2.8% nationally. These statistics obscure the worst examples: The Journal found that the rate was 1 in 5 at Scarsdale High School in New York, 1 in 4 at Weston High School in Connecticut, and 1 in 3 at Newton North High School in Massachusetts.

A 10th-grader at a private high school in Massachusetts, who requested anonymity, estimates that the percentage at her school is closer to half. In a math class with nine students, she’s the only one who doesn’t receive extra time on tests. When the period is up, she’s called by name to hand in her exam. The other students keep working. “How is that even possible?” she asks. “I’m like, can I just have the extra time for this class? Because I don’t need it, but if everyone else can have it, then I don’t see why I can’t.” She says it’s no secret that the system is easy to game: “Everyone that I’ve talked to says that if you don’t have extra time, then your parents don’t love you, because it’s so easy to get it.”

Federal law prohibits colleges from asking students about accommodations during admissions, and the College Board, which administers the SAT and other standardized tests, stopped flagging students’ use of accommodations in 2003. The New York Times found in 2019 that the rate of students receiving extra time on the SAT had doubled to 4% from 2% in 2002, with white and affluent students highly overrepresented. More time has a generally positive effect on performance, particularly for higher-ability students.

Karen Kolibaba, a special-education teacher at an elementary school in Colorado, says “there are some wealthier, more affluent families that kind of get entitled, and they feel like their kids should be getting accommodations. . . . The point of accommodations is they’re supposed to help even that playing field, so that everybody can show what they know.”

While some students truly need accommodations, many schools don’t distinguish between necessary arrangements and gratuitous ones. SAR High School, a private Jewish school in New York, recently decided to increase the length of its testing blocks by 50% for all students. Caleb Eden, a 12th-grader, says teachers frequently claim that students used to be able to complete tests in the standard 40 minutes. Now, he says, “a vast majority of the class” uses “some chunk of the extra time.”

It’s no surprise that students appreciate extra time. But there’s no entitlement to loose deadlines in the world of work, and it’s a disservice to teach students otherwise. A 2024 literature review in the Journal of Applied School Psychology finds that extended time improves test scores but may increase student anxiety and overthinking.

The solution is simple: Require students to disclose their use of testing accommodations during the college admissions process. Like grades and extracurricular activities, accommodations are relevant to college admissions. No one should fault a blind student for taking tests in Braille or a student with severe dyslexia who used audio aids. But the incentive structure must dissuade needless accommodations. Parents of students with mild testing anxiety, for example, might think twice before obtaining extra time if they know that admissions officers will ask for an explanation.

It’s time for some accommodation accountability. Federal law currently treats the mandated disclosure of accommodations as an act of discrimination against students with disabilities. Congress will have to change this so that parents who send their kids to America’s most selective, expensive and prestigious institutions can no longer game the system.

Ms. Lederman is a Joseph Rago Memorial Fellow at the Journal.

link;https://www.wsj.com/opinion/disabilities-act-becomes-a-license-to-cheat-students-test-accommodation

I know a family who adopted one of their foster kids. She was 16 at the time and has some issues from her mom doing drugs while pregnant. She will graduate in May, yet cannot read. I am not sure what the schools system does to allow someone to graduate without the ability to read. She does go to special ed classes. I am not even sure of the point in going to school, it appears she has the ability to learn but is not being taught or held to any standard.

On the other hand, I know of a well-to-d0 couple who adopted at least six children with disabilities. They had to go to hearings and work the system to get accommodations for their children like pick up by school bus. These were legit disabilities. I wonder if they're saving the resources for their friends or those who are willing to pay.

This opinion piece is very superficial.

While it references affluent families getting private diagnoses, it doesn't reference how many of those are bogus.

It also doesn't address another reason why affluent school districts have more children on 504s and IEPs: people will give up a lot to move into these districts as their child will be far more supported in them rather than the less funded districts. The stories for children with special needs in crappier school districts read like a nightmare.

I know this because we moved into one of these districts for that very reason. Portland Public schools are a disaster in the special education departments. Our district is as good as we could afford.

The article makes it sound like these kids get everything they want. It doesn't address the absolute slog that any parent will go through to have accommodations that are spelled out in 504s and IEPs honored.

Giving kids extra time to take the SAT who have a learning disability is setting them up for failure in college and most importantly in the world of work.

Uh-huh...

[broadbrush]

There are many positions in various trades that people with disabilities can work and make lifelong career, without "providing advantage" that is actually counterproductive as stated about the SAT

Some companies seek to employ such people, and other's could benefit from employing same.

Unfortunately, the "woke" bullshit attacks such thought and reality as "exploitative". Usually people with no dog in the fight, putting themselves in as proxy, are a greater impedance to life than the disabilities.

Accommodations are made everyday in life, and work is part of that. It's simply a matter of working together.

Any smart manager and leader will observe any person and work processes and if a person is not well suited for a task, they will be moved to a more appropriate place where they are more efficient and better utilized, or suggest/make changes to the process if possible and practical, provide training, etc. and the "payoff" is increased productivity, moral, and engagement by others.

In the case of a person not being "suited" after hiring, and the company does not have a "place" where the above is realistic, then the proper and ethical thing is to terminate the person. Provide whatever assistance that is practical.

Applying the above, with logic, can actually be less costly all around, than "worthless programs", lawsuits, regulation and laws, that are more about keeping bureaucracy engaged, than actually doing anything for the disabled.

I have actually done these things and saw people embrace it and the payback was obvious.
The hardest part was overcoming "Peter Think", a blight in so many organizations.

[/broadbrush]