zlacker

A third is about as common as astigmatism in >50 year olds (like me, for instance!) I wear glasses to accommodate this disability, and as a result have nearly no practical problems due to it.

I don't think a problem having a high frequency means that we should decide it doesn't matter or need rectification.

>>jph00+(OP)
That's true, but astigmatism:

- is clearly defined

- can be measured objectively (with autorefractors, keratometers, corneal topographers)

- can be corrected cheaply ($20 glasses) to eliminate any disadvantage in performance or efficiency

Neurodivergence:

- is not clearly defined

- cannot be measured objectively, and is diagnosed using behavioral observations and cognitive tests

- may rely on 'accommodations' that, in the hands of someone without a diagnosis, would be considered cheating

Imagine I don't have astigmatism. If I were to take your glasses, would they improve my performance in college?

Imagine my legs are fine. If I were to take someone's wheelchair and start using it daily, would that improve my performance in college?

Imagine I am neurotypical. If I were to take 2x the time on a test, would my performance improve?

>>rahimn+Y5
You misunderstand how neurodivergence is be handled in education. It isn't a single diagnosis, and does not have a single accommodation. We use a catch-all word because it makes it easier to talk about as a collection of issues, but that's not how it's diagnosed or treated.

If you would find wearing noise blocking ear muffs, or sitting on a bouncy chair, or using a typing instrument instead of writing, improves your performance on a test, then yes that should be permitted.

(I do also think it would be a good idea if people had longer for many tests or tests had less on them. That kind of speed is rarely an important part of real world workplaces so those tests are rewarding low-value skills.)

>>jph00+lr
"If you would find wearing noise blocking ear muffs, or sitting on a bouncy chair, or using a typing instrument instead of writing, improves your performance on a test, then yes that should be permitted."

The thing these examples have in common is that they don't give you any inherent advantage that invalidates the purpose of the test. (Assuming it's not a handwriting test, or an 'ignoring distractions' test.)

I would group all of these along with the examples I gave: corrective glasses, and wheelchairs. They should be available to all students, without diagnosis or discrimination.

If you think limited time on tests doesn't serve a useful purpose, then why give 'extra' time to only some students, and not to all students?