Universal Untimed Tests Can Serve as an Educational Equalizer

October 31, 2019

On May 21, 2019, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled Many More Students, Especially the Rich, Get Extra Time to Take the SAT.  In the expose´, Douglas Belkin, Jennifer Levitz, and Melissa Korn detailed methods that wealthy parents employ to have their children diagnosed with learning disabilities, which can be advantageous for their future education.  Once students acquire a 504 or IEP, they are eligible to receive special ACT and SAT accommodations, the most common of which is taking the exams untimed.  The article made me sad, a little angry, and forced me to reflect on my own experiences with standardized tests.

For most of my schooling, I was a little above average in math and had no trouble finishing exams well before my classmates.  Reading, however, was much more challenging.  When proctors announced that the allotted time was up, over half of my pages would be left unread, their corresponding A  B  C  D  circles blank.  My test results usually indicated that I was on grade level in Math, but significantly behind in Reading.  As a rising sophomore in high school, data showed that I was functioning on a late third grade level.

I didn’t like my reading score, but I also felt secure in knowing that it wasn’t indicative of my actual competency.  I was able to read adult books if I had the necessary background knowledge to access their content, and my Language Arts (then English class) grades were normally in the C to B range.  I had little doubt that if I were given enough time, I would be able to score far better, but this was the early 1990s and although I was the son of educated parents, such accommodations were unknown to me.  Even if I had been aware they existed, I’m not sure I would’ve requested them.  False pride could’ve consumed me, and I might’ve equated accepting special help with weak character.

During my senior year of high school, I was diagnosed with a learning disability in reading and listening comprehension.  Looking back, I suppose it was possible that the school’s psychologist gifted me the diagnosis to appease my concerned parents.  Or – maybe I really was born with learning obstacles that put me in an unfair playing field when taking tests under the same conditions as other students.  Regardless, I took the SAT twice, initially scoring 350 in Reading and – a few months later – 430.

Two years later I was in danger of flunking out of university, so my father sent me to Landmark College, the U.S.’ only accredited institution focused solely on servicing students with learning disabilities.  There, I was given opportunities to succeed and through intensive tutoring, experimentation, and studying I became a far better reader, prepared for the demands of succeeding in college.  I took the SAT again and my Reading score jumped to 490.

Any country claiming to be a democracy should treat education as an equalizer among its citizens.  This, of course, is far from the case in America.  The resource gap between our richest and poorest public schools is horrifyingly wide and there are dozens of avenues – both legal and illegal - that wealthy parents can use to provide their children advantages that poorer parents cannot.  This includes purchasing IEP and 504 designations. Therefore, some level of inequality is unavoidable. The wealthiest parents will always be able to buy their way into private schools that offer better resources, low student/teacher ratios, and inroads to affluent, Ivy League alumni networks.  Later, they can also hire test prep tutors to maximize their children’s SAT scores, falsely inflating both their knowledge and aptitude.  Still, our educational system should aim to make American education as close to a meritocracy as possible.

A simple step towards educational justice would be implementing universal standardized testing accommodations, allowing every student to take the ACT and/or SAT untimed, but including work duration with each section’s score.  I would’ve likely scored much better than 490 in such a system, but prospective colleges would’ve been fairly informed that it took me significantly more time to do so.  They could’ve then decided whether or not I was prepared for their academic demands.

What has been lost in the timed versus untimed standardized test debate is the value and disvalue of working fast.  A History major might need to read 250 pages nightly to keep up with their coursework, making fast reading comprehension necessary for them to succeed.  This is not as important when writing a thesis, a task that might be spread out over the course of a school year or longer.  Deep thinking and solving problems after lengthy deliberations holds great educational value, but so does processing information quickly and working efficiently.

By including testing time in students’ overall score, schools could place a value judgment on the capacity to work fast.  Do they want to accept young men and women who can churn out good work quickly, or would they prefer students who need more time but produce better work?  It would be a challenging selection process, but well worth the debates that would invariably arise.  When comparing two applicants with equal scores, they might favor the faster worker, or they could be more impressed with the diligence of someone who persevered twice as long to get the same results.