Lots of people think a test should measure one thing (often under the slightly "main character" assumption that they'll be really good at the one truly important thing).

Tests usually measure lots of things, and speed and accuracy / fluency in the topic is one.

It certainly shouldn't be entirely a race either though.

Also if a test is time constrained it's easier to mark. Give a failing student 8 hours and they'll write 30 pages of nonsense.

▲

jaredklewis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Also if a test is time constrained it's easier to mark. Give a failing student 8 hours and they'll write 30 pages of nonsense.

Sure that makes sense to me, but I don't see why this would not also apply to ADHD students or any other group.

And of course, there needs to be some time limit. All I am saying is, instead of having a group that gets one hour and another group that gets two hours, just give everyone two hours.

I meant "constrained" not in the sense of having a limit at all, but in the sense that often tests are designed in such a way that it is very common that takers are unable to finish in the allotted time. If this constraint serves some purpose (i.e. speed is considered to be desirable) then I don't see why that purpose doesn't apply to everyone.

	▲	wisty 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There can be a genuine need to make it fair. Some students with anxiety can take 10 minutes to read the first question, then are fine. ASD could mean slower uptake as they figure out the exam format. So let's say you have a generally fair time bonus for mild (clinical) anxiety. The issue is that it's fair for the average mild anxiety, it's an advantage if a student has extremely mild anxiety. As you say, hopefully the test is not overly time focused, but it's still an advantage, and a lot of these students / parents will go for every advantage they can.

▲

bawolff 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Tests usually measure lots of things, and speed and accuracy / fluency in the topic is one.

Why are you trying to measure speed though?

I can't think of any situation where someone was like: you have exactly 1 minute to integrate this function, or else.

Fluency yes, but speed is a poor proxy for fluency.

	▲	schnable 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Why is it a poor proxy? Someone who really understands the concepts and has the aptitude for it will get answers more quickly than someone who is shakier on it. The person who groks it less may be able to get to the answer, but needs to spend more time working through the problem. They're less good at calculus and should get a lower grade! Maybe they shouldn't fail Calc 101, but may deserve a B or (the horror) a C. Maybe that person will never get an A is calculus and that should be ok. Joel Spolsky explained this well about what makes a good programmer[1]. "If the basic concepts aren’t so easy that you don’t even have to think about them, you’re not going to get the big concepts." [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guid...

▲

darth_avocado an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Well that’s the core of the problem. Either you’re measuring speed on a test or you’re not. If you are, then people with disabilities unfortunately do not pass the test and that’s the way it is. If you are not, then testing some students but not others is unfair.

At the end of the day setting up a system where different students have different criteria for succeeding, automatically incentivizes students to find the easiest criteria for themselves.