The Impact of Flagging on the Admission Process: Policies, Practices, and ... · the Admission...

The Impact of Flagging onthe Admission Process:Policies, Practices, and

Implications

Ellen B. Mandinach, Cara Cahalan, and Wayne J. Camara

Research Report No. 2002-2

College Entrance Examination Board, New York, 2002

College Board Research Report No. 2002-2ETS RR-02-03

The Impact of Flagging onthe Admission Process:Policies, Practices, and

Implications

Ellen B. Mandinach, Cara Cahalan, and Wayne J. Camara

Ellen B. Mandinach is Senior Research Scientist atEducational Testing Service (ETS).

Cara Cahalan is a Senior Research Associate at ETS.

Wayne Camara is Vice President of Research andDevelopment at the College Board.

Researchers are encouraged to freely express theirprofessional judgment. Therefore, points of view oropinions stated in College Board Reports do notnecessarily represent official College Board positionor policy.

The College Board: Expanding College Opportunity

The College Board is a national nonprofit membershipassociation dedicated to preparing, inspiring, and connect-ing students to college and opportunity. Founded in 1900,the association is composed of more than 4,200 schools,colleges, universities, and other educational organizations.Each year, the College Board serves over three millionstudents and their parents, 22,000 high schools, and 3,500colleges through major programs and services in collegeadmission, guidance, assessment, financial aid, enrollment,and teaching and learning. Among its best-knownprograms are the SAT®, the PSAT/NMSQT®, and theAdvanced Placement Program® (AP®). The College Boardis committed to the principles of equity and excellence, andthat commitment is embodied in all of its programs,services, activities, and concerns.

For further information, contact www.collegeboard.com.

Additional copies of this report (item #993907) may beobtained from College Board Publications, Box 886,New York, NY 10101-0886, 800 323-7155. The priceis $15. Please include $4 for postage and handling.

Copyright © 2002 by College Entrance ExaminationBoard. All rights reserved. College Board, AdvancedPlacement Program, AP, SAT, and the acorn logo areregistered trademarks of the College EntranceExamination Board. PSAT/NMSQT is a registeredtrademark jointly owned by both the College EntranceExamination Board and the National Merit ScholarshipCorporation. Other products and services may be trade-marks of their respective owners. Visit College Board onthe Web: www.collegeboard.com.

Printed in the United States of America.

AcknowledgmentsThis study was jointly funded by the College Board andEducational Testing Service. An earlier version of thispaper was presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, NewOrleans, LA, April, 2000. The authors wish to thankPaul Barton, Sydell Carlton, Carol Dwyer, ShereeJohnson-Gregory, Barbara Kirsh, Ida Lawrence, BrentBridgeman, Martha Mendez, Shilpi Niyogi, DianaPullin, Beth Robinson, Amy Schmidt, and June Zumofffor their input into the study and their insightfulreviews. This study could not have been conductedwithout the time and effort of all the college andsecondary school personnel who agreed to be inter-viewed and responded to the surveys. We sincerely hopethat we have been able to capture the essence of theirideas and perspectives on this very important topic.

ContentsAbstract...............................................................1

I. Executive Summary and Recommendations ....1

General Views and Perceptions of Admission Officers (Taken from the Surveys and Interviews) .....................2

General Views and Perceptions of Guidance Counselors (Taken from the Surveys and Interviews) .....................2

General Views and Perceptions of Disability Service Providers (Taken from the Surveys and Interviews) ............3

General Views and Perceptions of Educational Consultants (Taken from Interviews) ......................................3

Recommendations ...................................4

Authors’ Conclusions...............................4

II. Background .................................................5

Rationale for the Flag ..............................5

Accommodations, Testing, and the Admission Process .............................8

III. Project Design .............................................9

Objectives................................................9

Methodology ...........................................9

Surveys.................................................9

Interviews ..........................................10

IV. Survey Results ...........................................11

Survey Respondents ...............................11

Admission Officers Survey.....................12

Guidance Counselors Survey .................13

Disability Service Providers Survey........14

Suggestions ............................................16

V. Interview Results .......................................16

Interview Respondents...........................16

Interviews with Admission Officers.......16

Interviews with Guidance Counselors .....23

Interviews with Disability ServiceProviders ...............................................27

Interviews with Educational Consultants............................................28

VI. Discussion and Implications ......................29

References .........................................................32

Appendixes........................................................34

Appendix A: Survey Instrument forAdmission Officers ................................34

Appendix B: Survey Instrument forGuidance Counselors.............................41

Appendix C: Survey Instrument forDisability Service Providers ...................47

Appendix D: Interview Protocol forAdmission Officers ................................53

Appendix E: Interview Protocol forGuidance Counselors.............................55

Tables1. Summary of Test Volumes Nonstandard

Administrations of SAT® I and SAT II Tests .................................................................7

2. Volumes for College Board and ETSExaminations July 1998–June 1999 .................8

3. SAT Nonstandard Test Volume Comparison Test-Takers by Graduating Years.................................................................8

4. Sample Demographics for the Surveys ............11

AbstractThe study represents a first step in trying to gain a betterappreciation for the complexity of the issues surround-ing flagging test scores taken with nonstandardconditions and how the admission process can betterserve students with disabilities. Surveys were sent toadmission officers, guidance counselors, and disabilityservice providers at colleges and universities to examinetheir institutional policies and practices. In addition,interviews and focus groups also were conducted. It isclear from the results of this study that perceptionsabout the use of the flag for nonstandard test adminis-trations differ based on the role the respondent plays inthe admission process. Although differences exist withregard to the use of the flag, all three groups perceivedan equity problem concerning how students withdisabilities are identified, what documentation isrequired, and what services are provided to thesestudents. Respondents felt that some subgroups of stu-dents are not being served adequately by the currentsystem. In addition, the three groups shared a concernthat some nondisabled students are manipulating thesystem to receive diagnoses and accommodations, suchas extended time, so as to gain a perceived advantage onthe standardized tests.

Key Words: Flagging, accommodations, learningdisabilities, extended time, admission,SAT I: Reasoning Test

A Note to the ReaderThe issue of flagging, the inclusion of an asterisk toindicate that a nonstandard administration has beentaken, is extremely complex and highly volatile. Inaddition, perceptions about impact of the flag on theundergraduate admission process vary widely. Theintention of this document is to provide an objectivereporting of the research findings from the surveys andinterviews conducted with admission officers, guidancecounselors, and disabilities service providers. Theresearch focuses on the undergraduate admissionprocess, and therefore the SAT® I: Reasoning Test.

The document is divided into sections to ease theburden of the reader. The first section contains abulleted summary of the findings from the surveys andinterviews. Each synopsis is an attempt to summarizethe major findings from each group of respondents. It isimportant to note that the bullets reflect commentsmade by respondents, not interpretations from the

authors. This section also contains a set of recommen-dations that were suggested in the interviews andsurveys. A final set of bullets summarizes the authors’conclusions.

The second section provides the background andrationale for the study. The third section describes thestudy’s design. The fourth and fifth sections report datafrom the surveys and the interviews, respectively. Thesections are divided according to respondent group.Two points need to be highlighted. First, the textcontains data taken directly from the surveys or inter-views. Sometimes we paraphrase comments; other timeswe use direct quotes. The data sections do not containinterpretations by the authors. Second, the reader willsee redundancy across respondent groups. This wasintentional so the reader can note common themes aswell as discordant views. A final section provides a dis-cussion of the findings, interpretations by the authors,and directions for future work.

The chronology of this document also is noteworthy.The study on which this paper is based was the directresult of a joint College Board and Educational TestingService (ETS) study group that convened in 1998. At thetime the study was commissioned, both the CollegeBoard and ETS functioned according to what is known asthe U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rightsinterim policy on flagging. Data collection was complet-ed by the spring of 2000 and drafts of the report werewritten in the ensuing months. After consulting with therelevant client boards, during the summer of 2000, ETSmade a decision to discontinue its flagging policy for non-College Board tests. The College Board continues to sup-port the need for flagging and thus their flagging policy isstill in place. The College Board, however, has conveneda blue ribbon panel of external experts in psychometrics,disabilities, and admission to examine the flagging policy,its impact, and related research. Thus, flagging continuesto be an important focus for current and future researchand policy decisions.

I. Executive Summaryand Recommendations

The summary section attempts to highlight the majorviews expressed by each respondent group from thesurveys, interviews, or both. Where there are contradic-tory or discordant views, the method of response isindicated. A summary of the recommendations made bythe respondents is presented. Conclusions from theauthors follow.

1

General Views and Perceptions of Admission Officers (Takenfrom the Surveys and Interviews)

• There is an increase in the number of applicants whotake nonstandard, flagged administrations. Thisincrease is primarily for students with attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) and learningdisabilities (LD).

• Most, but not all, admission officers do see the flag.

• Flagged scores are given the same weight asunflagged scores, and the flag has no impact on thechances of admission (surveys). Flagging helps tomake admission decisions that are beneficial to theapplicants with disabilities. Thus, respondentsreported that the removal of the flag definitely willharm these students (interviews).

• A large percent of admission officers believe the flagshould remain.

• The reliability, validity, and integrity of the systemwill be jeopardized if the flagging policy is eliminated.

• Some institutions report that they will drop theSAT® if the flagging policy is discontinued, whileother schools would consider alternatives to theSAT. Eliminating flagging could cause a dominoeffect that would threaten the entire admissionprocess.

• The admission process should be one of integrity,with the applicant and the institution providingaccurate and honest information.

• The objective of the admission process is to find theright fit for both the applicant and the institution.

• Self-disclosure of a disability helps. The withholdingof information is problematic and counterintuitive tothe admission process.

• Test scores are only one piece of data among manyothers that are used to make an admission decision.One needs to examine the complete academicprofiles of applicants over time.

• A strictly formulaic approach to admission maywork against students with disabilities, especially ifthey have not self-disclosed.

• There needs to be a national standard that canserve to “level the playing field” for everyone.Admission officers believe that the SAT fulfills thatrole.

• The level of disability support services differs acrossinstitutions. Some institutions simply cannot accom-modate effectively the most severe disabilities. Someinstitutions have difficulty accommodating milddisabilities.

• There is some manipulation of the admission andtesting systems. Students who abuse the process areactually hurting more than helping themselves. Someparents seek what is perceived as an advantage fortheir children. Some professionals are contributing tothe abuse by writing suspicious documentation.

• There is an equity problem. Many groups of studentsreceive limited or no services. Such factors as culturalstigmas, differences in socioeconomic status,educational level, advocacy, lack of knowledge andawareness, geographical pockets of inequity,resources, and economics contribute to the problem.The “haves” are receiving services, whereas the“have-nots” are being further disadvantaged.

• Outreach and education for professionals, educators,parents, and the community would help to dispelmyths about the admission process and the applica-tion for accommodations. Everyone would benefitfrom training on how to better serve students withdisabilities.

• Guidelines, documentation, and the review processto qualify for accommodations need to be tightened.

• Extended time is at the heart of the abuse issue.There is a pressing need to conduct further researchon the impact of extended time on test performance.Another alternative is to eliminate timing for all test-takers. There also is a need to understand if extendedtime has differential effects on different subgroups oftest-takers.

• There is also a need for additional research on thevalidity and differential acceptance rates of admis-sion decisions for students with disabilities.

General Views and Perceptions of Guidance Counselors (Takenfrom the Surveys and Interviews)

• There is an increase in the number of students whoare classified as disabled, particularly ADHD and LD.

• There is an increase in the number of applicants whotake nonstandard test administrations.

• The flag should remain. There is significant concernthat the removal of the flag will jeopardize the legit-

2

imacy of the process by “opening up the floodgates”to potential abusers.

• While there is abuse within the system, which alsocreates an equity issue, there also is a legitimateconcern for students who are not being served by theprocess.

• More than one-third of the guidance counselorsstated that the flag has no impact on the chancesof admission, while less than one-third believe theflag may decrease a student’s chances (accordingto the surveys). Yet in the interviews, the guidancecounselors stated that the flag may benefit thestudent.

• Test scores are viewed as important by admissionofficers, which leads to an overreliance on SATperformance.

• Students should self-disclose their disability. Theadmission process is not serving the student if appli-cants are in the business of hiding information.

• Guidance counselors are severely overburdened andlack the resources to do the additional tasks associ-ated with requesting and certifying the need foraccommodations on admission tests. (n.b. This is atask that rightfully belongs to the “team” recom-mending accommodations.) Guidance counselors areoften caught in the midst of a highly politicized andvolatile process, with guidelines on one side andlitigious parents on the other.

• Guidance counselors are frustrated with parents whoare trying to manipulate the system to gain an advan-tage for their children.

• A valuable service would be to provide training,educational opportunities, and outreach to schoolpersonnel, including guidance counselors, to dissem-inate information about how to serve students withdisabilities. Training would help to dispel misinfor-mation and misperceptions about the admissionprocess and provide correct information about whoshould be certifying disabilities and what thenecessary accommodations for each student are.There also needs to be educational outreach to par-ents and the community.

• Guidelines and the review process should be madeeven stricter to deter abuse.

• Extended time is problematic. Research is needed onthe impact of extended time and the amount of timethat is appropriate for students with disabilities.

General Views and Perceptions ofDisability Service Providers(Taken from the Surveys andInterviews)

• There is an increase in the number of applicants whotake nonstandard, flagged administrations.

• Over half of the disability service providers believethat the flag should be removed (survey).

• The flag forces self-disclosure.

• The student should have the right to choose whetheror not to self-disclose.

• The flag has no impact on a student’s chances ofadmission (surveys). Some disability serviceproviders fear that the flag can be harmful to theapplicant (interviews).

• Effective counseling of students with disabilitiesneeds to begin early in their educational careers.

• There is a need for training guidance counselors withrespect to services for students with disabilities, andappropriate role for counselors in the process.

• There is a need to recognize that disabilities canoccur anytime in a student’s educational career. Latediagnoses can occur. High ability students can havelearning disabilities.

• Broad generalizations about or categorizations ofstudents with disabilities should not be made. It iscritical to deal with students on an individual, case-by-case basis.

General Views and Perceptions of Educational Consultants(Taken from Interviews)

• There is a need to increase levels of awareness andsophistication for everyone involved in the admissionprocess.

• Consultants believe there is abuse within the system,starting with parents and practitioners who willreadily bend the rules. Practitioners who abuse thesystem create suspicion of the professionalcommunity for those who are legitimate and ethical.

• Equity is an issue. Too many students are not beingserved adequately. The system fails many subgroupsof students.

3

• The admission process should determine the right fitfor the student and institution. It is unfair to set thestudent up for failure by raising the bar too high andsetting unrealistic performance expectations.

• The admission process must be one of honesty andintegrity.

• There needs to be research on validity and the impactof extended time.

RecommendationsRespondents provided useful information about whatthe College Board and Educational Testing Service(ETS) can do to better serve test-takers with disabilitiesand improve the process. Respondents generally believethat additional research and continuous improvementof the process for serving students with disabilities isnecessary, as indicated by the following recommenda-tions made in the course of the interviews or surveys:

• Tighten up the guidelines and requirements fordocumentation so that applicants with legitimate dis-abilities will be served and those without legitimatedisabilities will be denied accommodations.

• Make the review process more rigorous.

• Provide more training and outreach to educators,guidance counselors, and admission officers in aneffort to disseminate accurate information and dispelmisperceptions and myths about the certification andadmission processes.

• Provide more user-friendly information about proce-dures and available accommodations and services.Make the process easier.

• Collaborate with school districts and professionalorganizations to find ways to provide information tothe underserved groups through community forums,mentor programs, parental education, and outreach.

• Conduct the needed research on the validity of non-standard administration, differential admission rates,and extended time. Encourage colleges and universi-ties to conduct their own institutional research. Enterinto collaborations with institutions to conduct rele-vant research.

• Increase the level of awareness and knowledge ofCollege Board and ETS staff who are providingservices and support to test-takers with disabilities.

Authors’ Conclusions

• Many of the recommendations made by the respon-dents are routinely addressed by the College Boardand ETS; there is a need, however, for training andoutreach to school personnel and the public concern-ing disabilities, accommodations, and services.

• Different respondent groups hold different opinionsabout the impact the flag has on the admissionprocess.

• Although admission officers responded by surveythat the flag has no impact on an admission decision,results from the interviews suggest that the flag mayhelp the candidate, particularly at the more selectiveinstitutions.

• Nearly all admission officers and most guidancecounselors want the flag to remain; disability serviceproviders want the flag removed.

• The number of students applying to institutions ofhigher education with accommodations is increasing.The increase is for students with LD and ADHD andis found disproportionately in certain segments of thepopulation, specifically in middle and high SES, well-educated families, that come from the northeastcorridor and parts of California.

• There are many subgroups of students for whom thesystem is not providing any or adequate services.Steps to remediate this problem must be taken, usingeducation and outreach to parents, communities, andeducators.

• There are reports of abuse by students manipulatingthe system to get accommodations. Steps need to betaken to try to eliminate such manipulation, whilenot disallowing any student who is entitled to anaccommodation from receiving the needed services.

• Extended time as an appropriate and reasonableaccommodation for LD and ADHD students is aconcern for admission professionals, as well as fortesting organizations.

• Further research is necessary. There needs to beresearch on the impact of extended time on all test-takers, not just students with disabilities. Suchresearch will help to determine the extent to whichextended time is an appropriate and reasonableaccommodation for students with LD and ADHD.Research on predictive validity needs to beconducted. Testing organizations need to obtain evi-dence as to the comparability of scores from stan-dard and nonstandard administrations. Research

4

needs to be done, if possible in collaboration withuniversities, about differential acceptance rates ofcandidates, examining standard versus nonstandardadministrations.

II. BackgroundRationale for the FlagAn asterisk or “flag” accompanies a score when a stan-dardized admission test is administered under certainnonstandard conditions. In most instances, this flag car-ries no information about the circumstances underwhich the test was given, other than to indicate that theconditions were in some unspecified way nonstandard.The flag simply means that the test-taker has taken thetest under some nonstandard condition, which is almostalways an accommodation or modification to the testfor students with disabilities. The goal of such modifi-cations is to provide equal access or as many say, toattempt to “level the playing field” for the test-taker.According to the Standards (American EducationalResearch Association, American PsychologicalAssociation, and National Council on Measurement inEducation, 1999), the purpose of an accommodation is“to minimize the impact of the test-taker attributes thatare not relevant to the construct that is the primaryfocus of the assessment” (p. 101). These accommoda-tions are provided because the standard procedures insome way interfere with or impede test-takers fromperforming up to their ability.

As Phillips (1994) notes, whereas not all test-takerswith disabilities require accommodations, some mayrequire extensive changes to standard testing condi-tions. There is a delicate balance and professionalobligation in the provision of accommodations. On theone hand, there is the need to provide a reasonable andappropriate modification for the specific needs of theindividual test-taker. On the other hand, there is a mostimportant technical concern: the validity of theinterpretations that can be made from the scores thatresult from nonstandard administrations. Thus, it isimperative for the accommodation to result in asaccurate a measure of the intended construct as is prac-tically and psychometrically possible.

Phillips (1994) poses five questions which ifanswered “yes,” might imperil the appropriateness ofan accommodation:

1. Will format changes or alterations in testingconditions change the skill being measured?

2. Will the scores of examinees tested under standardconditions have a different meaning than scoresfor examinees tested with the requested accom-modation?

3. Would nondisabled examinees benefit if allowedthe same accommodation?

4. Does the disabled examinee have any capabilityfor adapting to standard test administrationconditions?

5. Is the disability evidence or testing accommoda-tions policy based on procedures with doubtfulvalidity and reliability? (p. 104)

Despite the best professional practices of testdevelopers, however, there are at least two reasons whycomparable validity may be imperiled with the provi-sion of an accommodation. First, it is often impossibleto provide such accommodations without changing acentral feature of the test, such as the timing parame-ters. Second, the accommodation may cause somechange to the construct measured by the test or imperilthe test’s ability to measure it completely. These are twoof the most important technical challenges at the heartof the comparable validity issue. When either of thesetwo conditions occur, timing or change of construct, thescore is flagged, thereby alerting the score recipient thatsomething about the testing conditions was nonstan-dard. In contrast, when comparable validity of anonstandard administration can be established, there isno need for the inclusion of an asterisk on the scorereport, and therefore this circumstance is not flagged.

As is stated in Standard 10.11, (AmericanEducational Research Association, AmericanPsychological Association, and National Council onMeasurement in Education, 1999):

When there is credible evidence of scorecomparability across regular and modified adminis-trations, no flag should be attached to a score. Whensuch evidence is lacking, specific information aboutthe nature of the modification should be provided, ifpermitted by law, to assist test users properly tointerpret and act on test scores. (p. 108)

As mentioned above, the intention of a reasonableaccommodation is to provide equal access for an individ-ual test-taker. It is important to note that a test scoreshould be only one of many factors that are used to makeadmission decisions. The test therefore should not be theonly indication of the individual’s ability or performance.The concern about the flag raised by its critics, however,is that the interpretation that accompanies the asteriskmight in some way be discriminatory or unfair to an indi-vidual with a disability. Heaney and Pullin (1998) pro-

5

vide a comprehensive discussion of flagging, as well asother issues that are relevant to the admission process forcandidates with disabilities.

Not only does testing with accommodations have toabide by the field’s professional standards, it also mustbe conducted in accordance with legal standards. Inparticular, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973),the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 1991), andthe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) arethe governing laws (see Heaney and Pullin, 1998;Nester, 1994; Pullin and Heaney, 1997). Tucker (1996)outlines how these laws directly impact the admissionprocess, including specifics about standardized testing,preadmission inquiries, eligibility criteria, documenta-tion, and accommodations.

Two issues are particularly salient to theunderstanding of flagging, accommodations, and theadmission process. The first is preadmission inquiriesand the second is how educational institutions handleapplications from candidates with disabilities.Preadmission inquiries are forbidden under Section 504,but there are certain circumstances under which this isnot an absolute ban (Heaney and Pullin, 1998). Suchinquiries can be used to a limited degree to remediate orcorrect past discrimination. A preadmission inquirymust be remedial, voluntary, confidential, and have noadverse effect if refused (Pullin and Heaney, 1997).Preadmission inquiries also are permissible if thestudent is applying to an optional, special program.

There are regulations that govern the admissionprocess and protect candidates with disabilities frompotential discrimination. As Pullin and Heaney (1997)note, “For admission to an institution of higher educa-tion, an applicant with a disability must show that he orshe is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’ Section504 provides that a ‘qualified individual with adisability’ is one who is able to meet all of the program’srequirements in spite of his or her handicap” (p. 804).In terms of admitting candidates, however, Heaney andPullin (1998) state that rejection can occur if the candi-date’s request for accommodations changes the corecomponents and requirements of an educational pro-gram. They note, “Whereas educational institutions arerequired to provide reasonable accommodations foradmitted students, they are not required to lower admis-sions standards as a form of accommodation. An appli-cant with a disability must be qualified for the programat issue, and several courts have held that the dismissalor rejection of students or applicants who do not meetscholastic requirements does not constitute impermissi-ble discrimination” (pp. 81–82).

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S.Department of Education is one agency that oversees

the fair and equitable provision for accommodations totest-takers with disabilities. In the quest to provideevidence of comparable validity, the OCR has arguedthat the testing organizations should provide evidencewhy flags should be used (Hanrahan, 1997) especiallygiven that the most comprehensive studies are nowsomewhat dated (Wightman, 1993; Willingham,Ragosta, Bennett, Braun, Rock, and Powers, 1988). Tothat end, a special conference was convened in 1997 bythe Board on Testing and Assessment to bring togetherrepresentatives from the testing organizations, theOCR, admission offices, and experts in the field todiscuss issues concerning the flag.

The primary issue that emerged is the extent to whichthere is comparable validity between standard adminis-trations and tests with accommodations, particularlyextended time and changes in constructs. The perceivedconcern of some disability advocates is that the use of aflag may potentially violate the civil rights of a test-taker who has taken a test with an accommodation. Thepotential violation occurs because the flag that isattached to a test score alerts the designated institutionsthat the candidate has taken the test under nonstandardconditions, and that there is likely some sort of disabil-ity. The presence of the flag identifies students withdisabilities who receive accommodations and, therefore,may bias admission decisions against the candidates.

Generally measurement professionals and the testingorganizations maintain that until there is evidence thatthe same constructs are being measured and that the testscores mean the same thing, the flag is necessary(Mehrens, 1997; Pullin, 1997). Yet as Heaney andPullin (1998) note, “efforts should be made to markedlyreduce the need for flagged scores” (p. 91). TheStandards (American Educational ResearchAssociation, American Psychological Association, andNational Council on Measurement in Education, 1985,1999) have supported and continue to recognize what isknown as the interim flagging policy, deeming that theremoval of the asterisk would be professionallyirresponsible if there is not evidence of comparablevalidity. The technical manual Recruitment,Admissions, and Handicapped Students: A Guide forCompliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Actof 1973, as cited in Pullin and Heaney (1997), describesthe interim policy:

Until such time as a more viable policy can beworked out, the testing services will be allowed tocontinue to notify their users that tests were takenunder non-standard conditions. This is an interimpolicy only. OCR recognizes that this procedure mayviolate the prohibition against preadmission inquiry;it will be allowed only until the interim policy can be

6

modified, and OCR suggests that recipients be pre-pared to modify their admissions requirements in thefuture. (p. 811)

Thus, it is incumbent upon professionals to continue toconduct research on the impact of flagging on validity andtest score usage.1 Such research is being conducted in partbecause trends indicate that more students with disabilitiesare applying to and attending college than ever before(Greenberg, 2000; Henderson, 1999; Lee, 2000).According to Henderson, the number of first-year collegestudents classified as LD tripled from 1 percent to 4 per-cent between 1988 and 1998. Students with disabilitiescomprised 7 percent of the first-year students in 1988; by1998 they accounted for 9 percent. This is an interestingstatistic, especially given that less than 2 percent of the test-takers use an accommodation on the SAT. LD studentscomprised 41 percent of all disabilities, the only disabilitycategory to show an increase (from 15 percent in 1988).Further, when students with different classifications of dis-abilities were compared, those with learning disabilitieswere most likely to be male, white, and from families withincomes of more than $100,000. The Henderson surveyalso indicated that 52 percent of the LD students attendedtwo-year colleges, 46 percent went to four-year schools,and 2 percent enrolled in Historically Black Colleges.Further, the LD sample was less ethnically diverse than thetotal population of college students; 84 percent were white,6 percent African American, 3 percent American Indian, 2percent Asian American, 1 percent Mexican American, 1percent Puerto Rican, and 1 percent other Latino.Compared to recent college enrollment figures (Chronicleof Higher Education, 2000), whites and American Indiansare overrepresented. Whites accounted for 77.5 percent ofthe undergraduates and American Indians .8 percent. Incontrast, Asians, blacks, and Hispanics are underrepre-sented, accounting for 4, 10, and 6 percent, respectively.

As noted previously, the number of college studentswith disabilities is increasing. Further, it is clear from thepreliminary research (Cahalan, 2000), a recent audit inCalifornia (Leatherman, 2000; Weiss, 2000c), and sub-stantial media attention (e.g., Weiss, 2000a), that region-al, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences in the likeli-hood of applying for and receiving an accommodationare emerging and must be explored further. Initial analy-ses used to determine which institutions receive testscore reports with accommodations indicated a discern-able demographic pattern in which there are someregions of the country where a disproportionately highnumber of students receive accommodations, and otherregions where accommodations are disproportionatelylow (Cahalan, 2000; Cahalan, Mandinach, and Camara,

in preparation). Of particular concern are the Southernstates, urban areas, and rural areas where there are rela-tively few students who receive accommodations.Additionally, fewer students from lower SES householdsand with less-educated parents receive accommodationsin high school and apply for them on subsequent tests.Further, very few students taking tests with accommoda-tions apply to Historically Black Colleges andUniversities. The scarcity of accommodations occursboth at the attending institution or high school fromwhich the student is graduating and at the designatedinstitution or college to which the test score reports aresent. In contrast, students in the Northeast corridor andCalifornia, and those from more affluent householdswith well-educated parents apparently are more likely toapply for a test accommodation (Cahalan, 2000).

The level of aggregation of data on students withdisabilities impacts research in this area. On the onehand, there need to be enough cases within a disabilitycategory or type of accommodation from whichaggregation can occur and comparisons made. At thetime the interim flagging policy was put into place,there were insufficient numbers of students with aspecific disability who received a specific accommoda-tion (e.g., visually impaired student taking a Braille test,student with a learning disability taking a cassette formof a test), to conduct rigorous research. As Henderson(1999) and Lee (2000) have noted, the number ofstudents with disabilities attending college hasincreased. Similarly, the volume of nonstandard testadministrations has increased over the past decade (seeTable 1) and differentially impacts different testing pro-

7

1 See Heaney & Pullin (1998) for a discussion of the need for research and the relationship of accommodations and flagging withrespect to individual rights.

TABLE 1

Summary of Test Volumes NonstandardAdministrations of SAT I and SAT II Tests

Number of Percent IncreaseTesting Year Tests Administered from Previous Year

1990–1991 17,0001991–1992 19,000 12

1992–1993 21,000 111993–1994 27,000 29

1994–1995 30,000 111995–1996 37,000 14

1996–1997 42,000 141997–1998 44,000 5

1998–1999 47,000 7

1999–2000 Projected 49,000 Projected 4

Projected 52,000

Source: SAT Program, Services for Students with Disabilities, July 20,1999. Note that these volumes do not represent the number of test-takers, as many students take the test more than once.

grams (see Table 2). Note in Table 3 that, although thenumber of nonstandard administrations of the SAT hasincreased, the relative percent of total administrationshas begun to level off.

There is also a philosophical issue that creates seriousmethodological problems in conducting research. Whendetermining the appropriate accommodations requiredby a student with disabilities, it is imperative to considereach request on a case-by-case basis. The severity of aparticular disability differs across individuals, as willthe specifics of the accommodation. Using aggregate

data when there is the obligation to treat eachindividual separately creates both a methodological andphilosophical conundrum. If each test-taker is consid-ered a unique case, researchers cannot conduct researchon groups of test-takers. If test-takers with similardisabilities are combined into large groups to permitresearch, such groups may be combining persons withsomewhat different types of disabilities or differinglevels of severity of disabilities, reducing the validity ofany findings. This problem seriously calls into questionthe ability to conduct valid research that will be accept-ed by the legal, disability, and research communities.

Accommodations, Testing, andthe Admission ProcessStudents with a disability must apply to the College Boardand ETS to obtain an accommodation on a standardizedtest such as the SAT. As noted previously, when theaccommodation has involved a change of construct orextended time, an asterisk or flag has been noted on thetest score report to indicate a nonstandard administration.

The process by which a student applies for an accom-modation is well-documented in guidelines published bythe College Board and ETS (1999). The guidelinesoutline the regulations for eligibility, documentation,and testing site options. Applicants must submit aStudent Eligibility Form. For eligibility, a student must:“(a) have a disability that necessitates testing accommo-dations, (b) have documentation on file at school thatsupports the need for requested accommodations andmeets the Guidelines for Documentation, and (c) receiveand utilize the requested accommodations, due to a dis-ability, for school-based tests (College Board, 2001).”However, students who do not meet any one of thesecriteria still may be eligible through an appeal process.Appeal cases, however, have an approval rate of less

TABLE 2

Volumes for College Board and ETS ExaminationsJuly 1998–June 1999Program Number LD Percent

College Board Examinations

SAT I: ReasoningTest 2,468,600 47,000 1.90PSAT/NMSQT®:Preliminary SAT/National MeritScholarship Qualifying Test 2,136,000 16,800 0.79

AP®: Advanced Placement Program® 1,153,100 2,600 0.23

Other ETS Examinations

The Praxis Series 813,483 4,321 0.53TOEFL: Test ofEnglish as a Foreign Language 689,518 318 0.05

GMAT: Graduate Management Admission Test 201,000 832 0.41GRE: GraduateRecordExaminations

General Test 474,000 3,316 0.70

TABLE 3

SAT Nonstandard Test Volume Comparison Test-Takers by Graduating Years93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000

Total Test-Takers 1,044,465 1,050,386 1,067,993 1,084,725 1,127,021 1,172,779 1,220,130 1,260,278Standard 1,032,206 1,035,392 1,051,830 1,065,679 1,105,403 1,149,461 1,196,114 1,234,708

Nonstandard 12,259 14,994 16,163 19,046 21,618 23,318 24,016 25,570PercentNonstandard 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Growth Rate–Total 0.6% 1.7% 1.6% 3.9% 4.1% 4.0% 3.3%

Growth Rate–

Nonstandard 22.3% 7.8% 17.8% 13.5% 7.9% 3.0% 6.5%

This information represents test-takers by graduating class. For example, for the graduating class of 2000, there were 25,570 students who tooka nonstandard SAT while in high school. Our nonstandard volumes have leveled off at about 2 percent of the total SAT.

Source: The College Board, Services for Students with Disabilities, December 16, 2000.

8

than 20 percent. The brochure explicitly states that “thepresence of an IEP, 504 Plan, or professional evaluationdoes not guarantee that a student is eligible for testingaccommodations.”

The brochure also makes clear that students whoreceive an accommodation of extra time will be assigned aspecific time limit. SAT program tests with or withoutaccommodations are not untimed, nor are accommoda-tions a guarantee that the students will complete the tests.Finally, students with disabilities are eligible for eitherCenter Testing or School Testing. Students eligible forCenter Testing are typically approved for up to 50 percentextended time. Students who take School Testing may beapproved for more than 50 percent extended time, but notunlimited time. School testing is not necessarily greaterthan 50 percent extended time. There are some accommo-dations that cannot be given at a test center, but may notrequire additional time. The test is administered at the stu-dent’s school or at another designated site within a nine-day period corresponding to the national testing date. Italso should be noted that extended time differs fromstandard administrations in more than just the amount oftime allotted. Individual sections are timed during standardadministrations, whereas for extended time, students aregiven a total amount of time without the section breaks.

Nonstandard test scores are transmitted to admissionoffices in the same way as those obtained under standardconditions, the only difference being the inclusion of a“nonstandard administration” notion and/or the aster-isk. As was determined in the course of this study, whenscores are transmitted via datatape, not all computer sys-tems universally maintain or read the asterisk. Althoughstudents may or may not choose to self-disclose their dis-ability, in most cases, the asterisk or evidence of someaccommodation for a disability appears somewhere elsein the student’s file. This evidence may include a papercopy of the score report, specific curriculum, specificcourse-taking pattern, or student record. Such informa-tion provides some evidence of a student’s disability.Self-disclosure often occurs in the personal statement orduring an interview. Although students can elect to self-disclose their disability, institutions cannot inquire aboutthe disability or in any way use the information to affectthe admission process. There is some debate aboutwhether self-disclosure helps or harms a student’schances of acceptance. As will be seen later in the report,many respondents believe that self-disclosure is an indi-cator that students have come to terms with their dis-ability and can serve as self-advocates. In any case,whether through the asterisk, disclosure, or self-disclosure, the nonstandard test score then becomes onlyone piece of data among all others that an admissionoffice uses to make an admission decision.

Again, it is important to note that the intendedpurpose of the flag is not to indicate a disability or inany way discriminate against the test-taker. The solepurpose is to alert the score recipient that, in some way,the score being analyzed was obtained under non-standard testing conditions and may not be comparableto scores administered under standard conditions.

III. Project DesignObjectivesInput from admission officers, high school guidance coun-selors, institutional departments of special services, anddisability specialists is needed to understand more fully theextent to which flagging impacts decisions at various stagesof the admission process. It also is important to explore theperspectives of parents and students, but the need to pro-tect the confidentiality of students prevented this studyfrom including them in the surveys and interviews.

The primary focus of this work is to select samples ofthe above-mentioned constituencies and to seek informa-tion from them about their unique concerns and percep-tions of the issues surrounding the use of flagging. Theultimate objective is to gain a better understanding aboutwhat impact flagging has on the admission process.

MethodologySurvey instruments, interviews, and focus groups werethe primary means of data collection. The specificmethodology for sample selection varied acrossconstituent groups and depended on the information wesought to elicit. Although a goal was to seek informa-tion about all types of accommodations and the role offlagging nonstandard test administrations in theadmission process, a particular focus was on studentsclassified as having ADHD or a LD, the most rapidlygrowing categories of disabilities.

Surveys. Three surveys were developed to examine theviews, perceptions, and uses of flagging for admission offi-cers (Appendix A), high school guidance counselors(Appendix B), and college disability service providers(Appendix C). The surveys were anonymous. There wasbasic information common across the three surveys, sup-plemented by additional questions that focused on theuniqueness of the particular sample. In each survey, therewas a question about how the College Board and ETSmight better serve the institution in the admission process.

The sample for the admission officers survey wasdetermined using three sets of resources and data. The

9

intent here was to survey institutions that had at least amoderate level of experience serving LD students. First,we consulted the K & W Guide to Colleges for theLearning Disabled (Kravets and Wax, 1997) fromwhich we drew a sample of institutions that have areputation for providing support services for LDstudents. Second, the disability accommodationsspecialist of the ETS Office of Disability Policy identi-fied institutions that have a strong history of supportingstudents with disabilities (L. Brinckerhoff, personalcommunication, April, 1999). Third, we identifiedcolleges and universities receiving a high volume of SATscore reports taken under nonstandard conditions bystudents who reported having a learning disability orADHD. Institutions were included in the sample if morethan 150 score reports completed under nonstandardconditions were sent to them during the 1997–98testing year. These three procedures yielded a sample of427 colleges and universities that received the survey.

As can be seen in Appendix A, there were severalmajor questions that the survey to the admissionofficers sought to address. First, the survey establishedthe general demographics of the institution and trendsin applications from candidates with nonstandard testadministrations. It then focused on specific informationabout the flag, such as whether the flag is seen, assump-tions made about the flag, how flagged test scores areused, and what impact the flag has on an admissiondecision. The survey asked about sources of disclosureand self-disclosure; that is, when and how the admissionoffice learns of a candidate’s disability. Finally, the sur-vey probed the extent to which the flag should be keptor removed, leaving room for open-ended responsesabout the flag and any other pertinent information.

The second survey was sent to a sample of 509 highschool guidance counselors. A mailing list was generat-ed by Market Data Retrieval, targeting the directors ofguidance for both public and private secondary schoolsacross the country. The sample was geographicallydiverse, but drew more heavily from the areas that usethe SAT rather than the ACT.

The survey sent to the guidance counselors ispresented in Appendix B. The survey first established thedemographics at the respondent’s school, including thepercent of students who take the SAT in the junior andsenior classes. It also asked about trends in the number ofstudents who receive accommodations in school andhave requested them on standardized tests. An importantissue at the high school level is the extent to which guid-ance counselors and students are aware of the options foraccommodations and the procedures by which they arerequested, and whether they know that a flag accompa-nies a nonstandard administration. Thus, several ques-

tions focused on awareness. Others asked about theresources available to guidance counselors. Parallel ques-tions about the perceived impact of the flag and whetherit should be kept or removed also were included.

Disability service providers at colleges and universitiesreceived the third survey. The Association for HigherEducation and Disability (AHEAD) provided the mailinglist for its special interest group on learning disabilities.An attempt was made to match the providers’ institu-tional affiliations with those of the admission officers towhom those surveys were sent. Thus, the third surveywas sent to individuals at 335 disability resource centerslocated at 78 percent of the institutions to whom theadmissions survey had been sent.

The survey for the disability service providersappears in Appendix C. It begins with demographicquestions about the institution and the disability ser-vices office. The survey then asks about the relationshipbetween the disability services and admission officesand whether the disability services providers have inputinto admission decisions. Several items try to determinehow many students are served by the office, how manyare newly diagnosed, and how many choose not toreceive services upon matriculation. The survey alsocontains parallel items about awareness, disclosure, andthe perceived impact of the flag.

Each instrument went through extensive review bycolleagues and learning disability experts to determine ifit included the right and appropriate questions. Twoissues about the surveys arose, one during review andone when the responses were returned. First, a concernabout the appropriateness of several questions on theadmission officer survey was raised by one externalreviewer. Further review by experts determined that thequestions were appropriate and sufficiently sensitive.Second, despite numerous reviews, a problem occurredon one critical item on the disability service providersurvey, which rendered its interpretation difficult. Theitem intended to ask if the disability service providersthought the flag should be kept or removed, but themultiple-choice options were ambiguous. The problemwas partially remediated by follow-up electronic mailqueries to respondents who had identified themselves.(For the specific question, see item 22 in Appendix C).

Interviews. Interviews with a select number ofdisabilities specialists were conducted by phone and inperson. These were individuals well respected in theirfield and recommended as experts who could providevaluable information that could serve as a stimulus forthe other interviews. The primary emphasis, however,was on focus groups and interviews with high schoolguidance counselors and admission officers. A first set ofinterviews occurred at the College Board National Forum

10

in October 1998, followed by more conducted at theCollege Board Southern and Western Regional meetingsin February 1999. These two regions, as noted previous-ly, were selected because in the West there appeared to bean overrepresentation of applicants who applied foraccommodations, whereas in the South, accommodationswere less frequent. A second round of interviewsoccurred at the 1999 National Forum and the 2000Southern and Western Regional Meetings. Registrant listsfrom the New England, Middle States, and MidwesternRegional Meetings were obtained, from which names forphone interviews were drawn. The institutions with highvolumes of test score reports for nonstandard adminis-trations for LD students also were targeted.

A total of 158 interviews were conducted, whichincluded 84 admission officers, 53 guidance counselors,11 disability service providers, 2 independenteducational consultants who are also disability special-ists, and 8 administrators from secondary, district, andpostsecondary institutions. It is also important to notethat these categorizations reflect only the respondent’scurrent academic position. It became clear that manyindividuals have had careers that include both guidanceand admission positions and that their responses reflectthese varied aspects of their careers. Many respondentsalso have had significant backgrounds in disabilityservices or have personal experience with disabilities.There also were several attorneys in the sample whohave moved into educational careers.

Interview protocols were prepared for the admissionofficers (Appendix D) and guidance counselors (AppendixE), and they reflect many of the same topics that were cov-

ered in the surveys, but allow for more depth in responding.The questions asked of the admission officers focused ondemographics, trends, when they see the flag and where,procedures for reviewing applications, the importance ofthe flag, interpretations of nonstandard scores, interpreta-tions of the flag, whether the flag should be kept orremoved, and the potential benefits or detriments of thecurrent flagging policy. Issues covered in the interviews withguidance counselors included student and guidance coun-selor awareness, resources available to students and coun-selors, counselor and school personnel training, trends,interpretations of the flag, and their position on the flaggingpolicy. The interviews were sufficiently flexible to covermost of these topics as well as other issues that were of par-ticular relevance to the respondents and their institutions.Thus, the interviews generally were conducted as a discus-sion, with appropriate probes and specific questions askedas needed. Interviews were conducted by the first author.Focus groups were conducted by the first and third authors.

IV. Survey ResultsSurvey RespondentsResponse rates for the three surveys were comparable,with 41 percent of both the admission officers (175 of427) and guidance counselors (209 of 509), and 46 per-cent of the disability service providers (154 of 335)responding. The demographics of the three samples areoutlined in Table 4. The table provides information

TABLE 4

Sample Demographics for the SurveysAdmissions Disability Services Guidance

(N=177) (N=153) (N=208)

Affiliation N % N % N %

Public 84 48.6 76 52.8 193 92.8Private 89 51.4 68 47.2 15 7.2

Not Reported 4 9

Size (College Samples/High School)

<3,000/1,000 52 30.1 36 25.0 64 37.03,000–10,000/1,000–2,000 68 39.3 55 38.2 87 50.3

<10,001/2,001 53 30.6 53 36.8 22 12.7

Not Reported 4 9 35

College Board Region

New England 22 19.5 11 12.4 29 13.9Middle States 27 23.9 14 15.7 35 16.8

South 22 19.5 20 22.5 43 20.7Midwest 16 14.2 14 15.7 56 26.9

Southwest 4 3.5 9 10.1 14 6.7

West 22 19.5 21 23.6 31 14.9

11

about the affiliation of the respondents: public orprivate institution, the size of the institution, and thegeographical distribution across respondents, catego-rized by the College Board geographical regions. Thesample of admission officers represented 36 states andthe District of Columbia. All states except Alaska,Arkansas, Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,South Dakota, and the District of Columbia were rep-resented in the survey of guidance counselors. Anotherdemographic worth noting is the small number ofguidance counselors from private institutions whoresponded to the survey. Although counselors atindependent schools were proportionately sample, only7 percent responded to the survey. The 153 universitiesresponding to the disability service provider surveyyielded responses from 31 states.

Admission Officers SurveyThe survey sent to the admission officers is found inAppendix A. Included in the Appendix are thebreakdowns by item of the number of respondents andpercentages for each multiple-choice option. Becausesome individuals chose not to answer certain questions,the figures in the Appendix reflect percentages based onthe total number respondents. Results are reported inthe text with figures that represent the number ofindividuals who responded to each question. Thus, thepercentages in the text and Appendix differ slightly,reflecting the impact of missing data. This procedurealso was used for the other two surveys.

Most respondents (73 Percent) reported an increasein the number of applicants who have taken nonstan-dard administrations in the past five years. This findingcorresponds to the substantial rise across College Boardand ETS programs for test-takers who have requestedaccommodations (see Table 1 for SAT trends from thepast decade, Table 2 for data from the 1998–1999testing year across major ETS testing programs, andTable 3 for College Board data on SAT nonstandardvolumes). Among the admission officers who respondedto the survey, 79 percent are proponents of the flag,expressing the need to maintain the flagging policy.Although as a group they are strongly in favor of theflag, 87 percent reported, somewhat paradoxically, thatthe flag has no impact on admission decisions. A smallnumber (2 percent) believed the flag might decrease astudent’s chances of admission, whereas 7 percentbelieved it might increase their chances. These are inter-esting but conflicting numbers, given the results fromthe interviews described below.

When admission officers see that a student has takenboth standard and nonstandard administrations, 69

percent say they place the greatest weight on whichevertest yields the highest score or that they consider bothscores equally (18 percent). If there is only a nonstan-dard administration, 46 percent of the admissionofficers reported that they would attend more to otherfactors such as grades, course-taking patterns, personalstatements, and recommendations.

What assumption do admission officers make aboutthe general meaning of the flag? Approximately three-quarters report that they assume that the candidate hassome type of disability that requires an accommodation,whereas 24 percent assume more specifically theindividual has a learning disability. Additionally, theadmission officers do make some assumptions about thereliability and predictive validity of the scores, with 59percent reporting that they believe that the flaggedscores are as reliable and accurate as standard adminis-trations. Only 4 percent of the respondents reportedthat they perceive that the scores from nonstandardadministrations are less accurate predictors of success.

As mentioned earlier, the disclosure of a disabilitywithin the admission process has always been a delicateissue, with some people advocating that it works to theadvantage of the candidate and others maintaining thatit provides opportunity for potential discrimination.The surveys indicated that students frequently self-disclose their disability during the admission process(61 percent), upon admission (30 percent), upon arrivalon campus (34 percent), or during matriculation (24percent). More than three-quarters of the admissionofficers see the flag at some point in the admissionprocess. However, only 20 percent actually see the flagwhen the scores are transmitted on data tape by ETS,whereas 75 percent report that the flag appearssomewhere in the applicant’s folder when it is reviewedpersonally. The sources of self-disclosure include theapplication form (26 percent), the student essay (30percent), letters of recommendation (17 percent), thepersonal interview (6 percent), and a variety of othersources (16 percent).

When a student self-discloses, the admission officesometimes informs or consults disabilities experts (36percent) or requests additional information from thestudent to make sure that the appropriate serviceswould be available if the student were to matriculate(34 percent). Most frequently (42 percent), the admis-sion office will inform staff after the student is admittedto ensure that services will be available. A third of theadmission officers indicated that schools should nottreat those with nonstandard administrations any dif-ferently than those who took standard tests.

Many admission officers included additional com-mentary with their surveys. The following comments

12

and quotes are representative of those provided byadmission officers and indicate that their focus is onextended time and how it relates to flagging, as well asthe need to provide accurate and honest information inthe admission process.

• Offer all students extended time.

• Sometimes parents push to have their children iden-tified as LD just to take the SAT untimed. (n.b. Thisis a misconception on the part of many respondentsacross groups. Tests are not untimed. They areadministered with extended time, usually 50 percentextra time.)

• More time is not an asset. Students rarely use theextra time.

• Nonstandard testing is often used as a manipulationto attempt to raise scores. Parents have their childrendiagnosed for that reason (or try to). The flag isimportant for fairness.

• “The nonstandard testing situation is a NIGHT-MARE.” Many students taking nonstandard testingdo not need it and only take it to increase scores.

• If scores were not flagged, more and more studentswould likely request untimed administrations. “Theflag is important because it causes students to thinkseriously what are the implications of untimed test-ing. Many who ask for it do not need it. It is moreharmful for a student to be accepted to a collegeunder false pretenses.”

• Parents and students should not purposely withholdinformation, specifically that their child has adisability. This should be an honest process.Withholding information would hurt the student inthe long run because they would not be offeredproper support services.

• College admission should be about having a realisticchance of success in college. The more informationthe admission officer has, the better.

• How can applicants be judged fairly if all the factsare not known about the learning abilities of eachstudent? The flag does not mean something bad. Itdenotes an accommodation.

Guidance Counselors Survey The survey sent to the guidance counselors is found inAppendix B. Included in the Appendix are thebreakdowns by item of the number of respondents andpercentages for each item option. It is obvious that thenumber of students in high schools who receive services

for their disabilities is on the rise. Almost three-quartersof the guidance counselors reported that there has beenan increase in the number of students with an IEP(Individual Education Plan) or a 504 Plan, indicatingthe presence of a diagnosed disability for which theschool provides accommodations. On average perschool, 10 percent of the students receive either an IEPor 504 Plan, with a range from 0 to 60 percent. Thisstudy focused on the SAT and asked about the numberof students who request accommodations on the SAT; itdid not account for the geographical areas where theACT predominates. For example, there are a number ofstates where few students take the SAT in favor of theACT. The questions in the survey were specific to theSAT (e.g., the percent of seniors who took the SAT).Consequently, it is difficult to link averages specific toSAT test-taking patterns and accommodations with in-school accommodations. Counselors reported a rangefrom 0 to 20 percent of their students who have request-ed accommodations, representing either an increase (45percent of the respondents) or no change (54 percent).It is difficult to determine if the lack or requests foraccommodations at some schools indicates noaccommodations were requested for the SAT or noaccommodations were requested at all.

A majority of the guidance counselors believe thatthe flag designation should be kept (64 percent).However, some counselors said that they did not knowor did not have enough information to form an opinionabout the flag (18 percent). In contrast to the admissionofficers, the guidance counselors felt that the flag eitherhas no impact (34 percent) or may decrease the stu-dent’s chances for admission (31 percent), whereas 15percent believed that the flag may improve the student’schances for admission. Other guidance counselorsreported that they did not know (9 percent), it dependson the school and program (9 percent), or impact couldgo either way (1 percent).

Guidance counselors have a critical role with respectto helping to obtain the needed resources and accom-modations for their students with disabilities.According to the survey results, the vast majority of thecounselors are aware of the options students have foraccommodations on standardized tests (98 percent) andare familiar with the procedures to request accommo-dations on the tests (98 percent). Fewer (80 percent)were aware that the flag is used to designate a nonstan-dard administration. Nearly three-quarters of thecounselors also report that students are aware that mosttests taken with an accommodation will be accompa-nied by a flag.

Guidance counselors in many areas have a number ofpotential resources available to them with respect to

13

assisting students with disabilities. A large number ofschools rely on a special education teacher (81 percent),a school psychologist (71 percent), or a learning dis-abilities specialist (62 percent). Many counselors (62percent) reported that they are able to attend specialconferences or workshops, receive relevant publicationsor newsletters (41 percent), or turn to LD guides orsoftware (25 percent). Special training in this area isavailable only to about a quarter of the counselors.

A number of guidance counselors providedadditional information on the survey that reflects theirposition on the complex issue of flagging. The followingrepresents a sample of the comments and quotes made.Again, the impact of removing the flag, extended time,and matching students to institutions appropriatelyseem to be the pervasive issues.

• The tests should be untimed for everyone.

• Either administer all SAT’s with extended time oracknowledge those that were extended.

• There needs to be consistency between testing andschool accommodations. It is difficult to reconcilethe differences.

• Although some counselors from academic highschools with high achieving students and ambitiousparents often recommend accommodations whereappropriate, but the parents refuse them.

• A number of counselors said that if the flag designa-tion is removed “chaos would occur.” People in afflu-ent communities would be “beating the bushes find-ing the charlatans who are already doing a thrivingbusiness providing questionable evaluations, andoffering tutorial services.” It would be unfair to thegeneral population, and it would create a run of peo-ple being evaluated in order to get “an edge on tests.”

• Encourage students to apply to schools with goodservices and a receptive attitude.

• Match students to institutions with appropriateservices. The particular disability needs to be accom-modated appropriately. Therefore flagging is in thebest interest of the student, who is trying to find agood match and looking for schools with a goodtrack record.

• Counselors with many years of experience sometimeslack the resources and knowledge they need. Theydon’t know what a flag is.

Disability Service Providers Survey The survey sent to the disability service providers isfound in Appendix C. Included in the Appendix are thebreakdowns by item of the number of respondents andpercentages for each item option. This group of respon-dents also has seen an increase in the number ofapplicants who have requested accommodations (79percent of the respondents). They report that, on aver-age, 311 students (ranging from 4 to 1,800) or 5 percent(ranging from 0 to 100 percent) seek assistance at thedisability services office each year. Yet, unlike the othertwo sets of survey respondents, more than half of thedisability services providers believe that the flag shouldbe removed (54 percent), whereas 29 percent believe itshould be kept. In the question that followed, some dis-ability service providers indicated they were uncertain(4 percent) if the flag should be kept or removed. Itshould be noted that there was a problem with thisquestion on the survey that caused some recipients tonot respond.2 Despite their position concerning the flag,the disability service providers believe that the flag hasno impact on the admission decision (81 percent). Asmall number believe it may increase a student’s chances(4 percent) or decrease the chances (7 percent), or thatthe impact might go either way (8 percent).

Disability services offices provide input into theadmission process for students with disabilities at nearlyhalf (48 percent) of the institutions surveyed. Inresponding to specific ways that disability resourcecenters are used, admission offices often seek theirexpertise for various tasks throughout the admissionprocess (37 percent), including the review of applica-tions (21 percent). In nearly half of the institutions, theresource center staff become involved and are consultedto make sure that services are available for applicantswith disabilities during decision making (45 percent) orafter (46 percent) admission. Disability serviceproviders most often become aware that an individualwith a disability has applied to the institution when thatstudent first appears at the resource center (55 percent).Less frequent as a source of disclosure are studentessays (9 percent), application forms (8 percent), lettersof recommendation (3 percent), or personal interviews(10 percent).

Disability service providers show patterns of aware-ness concerning accommodations and flagging similar

14

2 If the respondent included his or her name and address, a further inquiry was made, and yielded additional responses. These wereindividuals who indicated that they would like to receive more information about the study. Unfortunately 7 percent of the ques-tionnaires were returned without a response to this important question or some sort of commentary indicating their feelings aboutmaintaining or removing the flag.

to those of the guidance counselors. Almost all areaware of the options students have for accommodationson standardized tests (99 percent) and are familiar withthe procedures to request accommodations on the tests(9 percent). Many (87 percent) are familiar with the flagused to designate the nonstandard administration.However, only about half of the disability serviceproviders (54 percent) believe that students are awarethat a flag accompanies a score from a nonstandardadministration. It is also interesting to note that despitethe growing numbers of LD and ADHD students whoare attending college, slightly under two-thirds of theinstitutions (65 percent) in this study reported that theyhave an LD specialist on staff.

The disability services offices also providedadditional comments about flagging and the rights oftest-takers with disabilities. Their comments reflectsome striking differences of opinions within the profes-sion but definitely in comparison to the other groupssurveyed, indicating their position of advocacy onbehalf of this population of students and test-takers.Their comments also indicate that many are lessconcerned about the psychometric soundness of thetests than they are about the rights of their clients. It isalso clear that most disability service providers, unlikethe two other samples surveyed, believe that all studentswho request accommodations are legitimate and thatthere is no manipulation of the process by studentswithout a real need for accommodations. The followingare comments from the disability service providers:

• The flagging policy should be discontinued because itindicates “nonapproved disclosure.” The studentshould be allowed the decision to self-disclose.

• Discontinue flagging but include a disclaimer aboutthe interpretation of scores for all test score reports,not just those with disabilities.

• The flag will penalize the applicant.

• Why flag if studies show that extended time “levelsthe playing field” and predicts college achievementequivalently?

• Accommodations “level the playing field,” so there isno need for the flag.

• Regardless of what admission officers say, the flaghas an impact.

• The flag helps the student in the admission processand provides an impetus for self-advocacy.

• The flag helps the student by allowing a closer lookat a profile that may normally be denied admission.It helps to explain anomalies on the transcript.

• Keep the flag for research purposes to determine itsimpact on admission decisions. There needs to bevalidity research using the flag.

• It is helpful to have as much information as possibleto assist the student and institution. Without the flag,the test score consumer will be misled. It helps toprovide an appropriate match between the needs ofthe student and the institution.

• The flag helps the student with a disability to receiveappropriate services and accommodations.

• The goal for the College Board and ETS is to createa fair system for all students.

• Given the imprecise way of determining appropriateaccommodations and ascertaining comparability ofscores, it makes sense to keep the flag. There must bea level of trust that the information provided isaccurate. Hold the score users accountable for theirdecisions.

• The College Board and ETS do not understand learn-ing disabilities if they believe people are falsifyingdisabilities.

• “I worry deeply that those without the money andmeans to secure such letters of diagnosis and who havebona fide disabilities are being shut out from opportu-nities while some without a bona fide disability, butthe political and financial clout are getting accommo-dations. I believe the problem does not rest with ETS.Our high school professionals (private or public)largely jump at or to any parental pressure.”

• The College Board and ETS should tighten up thedocumentation. They grant accommodations tooeasily; therefore, the flag must remain to assureappropriate documentation.

• The College Board’s and ETS’s standards are toorigid and therefore pressures fraud. The need forcurrent documentation (within 3 years) is too strict.

• Some guidance counselors are telling the studentswith disabilities not to take extended time. They rec-ommend taking a standard administration first to seewhat the scores are, then they may consider a requestfor an accommodation for subsequent tests.

• Why is there an “abnormal” increase in the numberof accommodations?

• Preadmission inquiry is a barrier and discriminatory.

• Preadmission inquiry helps students to find a schoolwith a better fit and appropriate services for theirspecific needs.

15

Suggestions The surveys also contained questions asking how theCollege Board and ETS could provide better services withrespect to test-takers with disabilities. While many respon-dents noted that the two organizations are responsive,especially after revising and tightening the guidelines,many provided additional suggestions. The following con-tains a summary of the suggestions, most of which focuson the provision of clearer information about guidelinesand policies. Most of the suggested activities and materi-als already are available through ETS, the College Board,or other institutions, indicating that the organizationsneed more effective dissemination methods.

• Provide workshops and direct training for guidancecounselors and LD teachers.

• Provide more information, such as handouts atcounselor workshops.

• Prepare a pamphlet of best practices for guidancecounselors.

• Provide clearer information for parents and studentsabout admission policies. Publish a pamphlet for stu-dents with disabilities.

• Highlight procedures, accommodations, and supportservices. Provide a more comprehensive explanationof the accommodations available.

• Publish guidelines about how admission officeshandle candidates with disabilities.

• Help educate admission officers about nonstandardadministrations and the guidelines for documentation.

• Collaborate with other organizations such as theNational Association for College AdmissionCounseling (NACAC) or the Association for HigherEducation and Disability (AHEAD) to help clarifycriteria. Firm up requirements even more.

• Publish relevant research findings.

• Make the eligibility form more user-friendly.

• Make the process easier. Keep the dates the same asthe standard testing dates.

• Make it easier to administer the exam.

• Provide special accommodation services at testcenters. Don’t leave it up to the individual schools.

• Provide a free and more easily accessible telephoneline.

• Increase the awareness of ETS staff about studentsand test-takers with disabilities.

V. Interview ResultsInterview RespondentsBecause many of the interviews and focus groups wereconducted in conjunction with College Board meetings,the demographics may not be representative of thelarger populations. However, the 158 respondents yieldedexceedingly rich data from multiple perspectives.

The admission officers who were interviewed repre-sent 30 states and the District of Columbia. Using theCollege Board regional distinctions, six states were inNew England, six in the Middle States region, six in theWest, six in the South, six in the Midwest, and one inthe Southwest. Of the universities in the sample, 44were private institutions and 34 were public.

Only 21 states were represented among the guidancecounselor interviews, due in large part to the concertedeffort to sample from states in which more studentstraditionally take the SAT, rather than those in whichmore students take the ACT. Three states were in NewEngland, three in the Middle States region, five in theWest, eight in the South, two in the Midwest, and nonein the Southwest. There were 20 independent and 29public institutions represented in the sample.

Of the 11 interviews with disability service providers,six were from private institutions and five from publicuniversities. One institution was located in theMidwest, two in New England, four in the MiddleStates region, and four in the West.

As noted previously, many of the interviewees havehad varied careers that allowed them to respond toquestions from multiple perspectives. Many of theadmission officers and guidance counselors have hadexperience on both sides of the table. A number of themhave substantial knowledge of issues concerning dis-abilities, ranging from formal training to personal andfamily experience. Among the respondents were severalindividuals who also are attorneys. They were able torespond to the interview, not only from their currentformal role, but also in terms of legal issues within theadmission process.

Interviews with Admission Officers The interviews with admission officers were structuredby specific questions as well as opportunities for openresponses (see Appendix D). This section attempts tocapture the responses from the interviews without inter-pretation or commentary from the authors. Because ofthe large number of admission officers who were

16

interviewed, and their varied backgrounds, the inter-views yielded a wealth of information on myriad topicsthat impact the admission process with respect to appli-cants with disabilities. Three common themes emergedamong the admission officers. First, there is no questionthat there has been a large increase in the number of stu-dents designated as ADHD and LD applying to collegeswithin the past five years. Second, admission should bea process characterized by integrity on the part of boththe applicant and the institution. Admission officersneed to be fair and responsive to all applicants, andapplicants need to provide accurate and honest infor-mation. Third, there must be a national barometer orstandard that, according to the admission officers,attempts to “level the playing field” for all applicants.As one admission officer noted, “One thing that isconsistent worldwide is the SAT. It is standardized andwe feel confident with its meaning. We need thatconsistency.” Changes to the process will not only maketheir job more difficult, admission officers said, but willalso endanger test interpretation and use. Basically,their premise was, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

The admission officers discussed a number of topicsrelated to how information is now and could in thefuture be supplied in the course of the applicationprocess. They agree that they need as much contextualinformation as possible to make a decision that is valid,both for the applicant and the institution. Every piece ofdata helps them to make informed decisions. From theadmission perspective, the concept of taking awayinformation that can inform a decision is antithetical toan open and honest process.

A number of respondents commented about the pro-hibition against preadmission inquiries, which fromtheir perspective help to better serve the applicant witha disability. Their interpretation is that the law nowprohibits colleges from sending information to studentsthat might allow the applicant to make a more informeddecision about an institution, based on its ability toprovide appropriate services. Many admission officersbelieved that the process of using preadmission inquiryallowed applicants and institutions to be proactive.According to the respondents, admission offices nowmust send back any documentation of a disability thatthey receive. They report that it is illegal to help theapplicant in this manner until after acceptance andmatriculation, even if students self-disclose their disabil-ities (see Heaney and Pullin, 1998; Pullin and Heaney,1997; Tucker, 1996, for clarification).

Admission officers would like to see students whoare proactive and self-advocates as evidenced by fulldisclosure of their disabilities, yet they recognize thatthere are issues of privacy and that there is no easy way

to self-identify without concern that the informationmay not benefit the applicant. They generally feel thatself-identification is beneficial because it allows both theinstitution and the student to know as early as possiblethat services will be needed. One respondentcommented, “For the disabled student, it is importantto have an accommodation to show the true ability.Without the flag, we lose information that is helpful tothe kid. It is one more thing taken away. It is importantto have information to be fair to the applicant.”

Even without the flag or overt self-disclosure, thedisability is likely to be evident somewhere in the appli-cation process. Admission officers say that there aremany ways that applications allow them inadvertentlyto infer a disability, but the students generally do notprovide enough information to confirm the specifics oftheir status. For example, experienced admissionofficers often can tell by course-taking patterns, courseselection, grades, and performance that a student has adisability.

Several admission officers commented that studentswith physical, auditory, or visual disabilities are morelikely to self-disclose than are those with ADHD or LD,because their belief is that the former are more likely tobe self-advocates. Many students self-disclose after theyare admitted, whereas others choose not to disclose atall or seek services later in their college careers. Late dis-closure in college, particularly after having had testaccommodations creates a level of suspicion amongsome admission officers, particularly if the accommoda-tions are for LD or ADHD. The belief is if there is adisability, it should be accommodated and peopleshould be forthcoming. If the disability is hidden andstudents refuse to seek assistance, especially if they didnot receive accommodations in high school but did onstandardized tests, then as one admission officer cyni-cally commented, they “suppress information at thetime of admission, but exploit it later.”

One problem with nondisclosure is that if studentsdo not self-disclose when the test scores are flagged andthere is no other evidence or mention of a disability andprior accommodation of it in the application, admissionofficers tend to become suspicious. There are also manystudents who have taken the SAT with extended time,but who do not request accommodations once they areat college. This pattern causes many admission officersto become cynical after they have seen this patternrepeated over the years. One admission officerquestioned, “The students want an exception or accom-modation on the SAT, which is high stakes, but why noton anything else?”

One of the myths in the admission process concernshow test scores are used. Admission officers say that

17

students tend to think that test performance is moreimportant than it actually may be. According to theadmission officers, the score is only one piece of dataamong others that can be used to make a decision.Consistent with standard administrations, admissionoffices, at least at selective and highly selective institu-tions, generally use the highest score from among allnonstandard scores submitted by a student. In mostinstances, grades and transcripts are given more weightthan test performance, and sometimes scores may betotally ignored.3 Respondents consistently noted thatperformance over a four-year period usually carriesmore weight than test scores, especially when gradesand test performance are discrepant.

A number of admission officers commented aboutthe sorts of evidence that help to support an applicant’scase. It is clear that the admission officers want to seeconsistent patterns of achievement. They want a fullpicture of academic accomplishments and an inter-pretable profile of achievements over time. Candidatesneed a full and rigorous academic program and highgrades. If admission officers see sudden jumps inperformance in either direction, questions are raisedabout what has happened to the student. Colleges alsowant to see evidence that students with disabilities areusing compensatory strategies in coming to terms withtheir disabilities. As one respondent commented, “Thedisability is irrelevant. What is important is to have thekid show they have compensated in high school.” Theylike to see “students who break through in high schoolwith a passion for learning and a willingness to learnand work hard, using compensatory strategies to takeadvantage of learning opportunities.”

One issue that was raised concerned how schoolsdeal with high school transcripts that indicate studentshave not met admission requirements, as well as withrequests to waive requirements for specific collegecourses once they matriculate (see also Tucker, 1996).Applicants with disabilities must be at the same com-petitive level as all other students. Many schools willnot waive their requirements. Others are more lenient.The most commonly requested waivers are for foreignlanguages and mathematics. The issue becomes one ofattempting to strike a balance between what a degreefrom a given institution means, and hence its consisten-cy across graduates, and how far from the requirementone can go to accommodate the student (see alsoHeaney and Pullin, 1998; Pullin and Heaney, 1997).

Admission officers believe that the purpose ofaccommodations is to “level the playing field” for thosewith legitimate disabilities, and that the process should

be fair to both students with and without disabilities.Yet they recognize that there are some problems withthis premise. Many respondents expressed concern thatthe process can’t provide equal access for everyonebecause there are such diverse needs. Further, at somehighly selective institutions where there is range restric-tion with test scores, small differences in performancewill be magnified and may disadvantage certain appli-cants. According to the admission offices, disclosuremay help in these cases.

Admission officers state that there are instances inwhich applicants with disabilities may be disadvantagedwithout a flag or self-disclosure. Some institutions useeligibility or academic indices that compute compositesof test scores, grades, and various other relevant infor-mation to produce a number that can be compared tothe overall performance of other applicants. Suchformulaic approaches provide very little flexibility forstudents who may have any kind of educationaldisadvantage, such as a disability, limited educationalopportunities, and the like. An example given by oneadmission officer was when grades in AdvancedPlacement (AP) courses are calculated into GPAs, allow-ing students to attain higher than a 4.0 average.Students who take AP courses provided by their schoolswill fare better in eligibility indices than will studentswhose schools do not have such courses. The lack ofsuch educational opportunities creates a disadvantagethat would go undetected once an admission formula isapplied. Thus, taking a strictly formulaic approach willnot alert the admission office to the reasons foranomalous, deficient, or disadvantaged performanceunless the student chooses to self-disclose.

The impact of how data are reviewed for anyapplicant often differs based on the type and size ofinstitution and its level of selectivity. Small, highly selec-tive schools often are able to review each applicationindividually and examine the potential merits of eachcase using all information that is provided or implied.There is more pressure at the highly competitive schoolsthat receive as many as 15 applications for each open-ing, where some might even look for reasons to reject astudent. A formula or eligibility index may work to thestudent’s disadvantage if there is no information pro-vided about a disability. In contrast, the nonselectiveinstitutions are looking for reasons to admit—notreject—applicants. Test scores and GPA may be lesssalient or used differently. Less selective institutions alsoreport fewer self-disclosures.

Nearly all respondents agreed that finding the rightfit between the student and the institution is critical in

18

3 Research by Breland, Maxey, McLure, Valiga, Boatwright, Ganley, & Jenkins (1995) support that grades are given more weight,but that test scores are never totally ignored.

the admission process. The best interests of the studentand the institution should coincide. Admission officersoften noted that parents, students, and admission staffshould ask if the decision is the right fit for all partiesconcerned. Can the student do the work? Is the studentcompetitive for the institution? Will the student be com-fortable in this environment? Can the school effectivelyserve the student’s needs? Note that these questionsassume a level of disclosure. As one admission officernoted, “No competent professional sets a kid up forfailure.” Another commented that the admissionofficer’s role “should be to set the stage for success incollege, not just getting the student into school and set-ting up failure.” Most schools are trying to make thebest decisions to help students. However, some admis-sion officers noted that the objective of many parentsand students is to gain acceptance into the best andmost prestigious college, even if that school is not theappropriate place for that student. According to oneadmission officer, the perception on the part of parentsand students is that, “a good education means prestige,not necessarily quality of life. Decisions on the flag willimpact the parents more than the kids.”

Some schools have a wealth of disability serviceswhereas other institutions may have only limitedsupport. The K & W Guide to Colleges for theLearning Disabled (Kravets and Wax, 1997) uses threecategories to classify services, with StructuredPrograms as the most comprehensive, followed byCoordinated Services, and finally Services. Mostschools can provide modest accommodations, butsome are unable to handle the most severe disabilities.According to the respondents, parents need to askquestions to determine the extent to which the institu-tion can address the particular need of their child. Thisis particularly important for students with severe dis-abilities who apply to small private colleges that maynot have enough resources to reasonably meet the stu-dents’ needs, but is less applicable to students withADHD or LD who require less expensive services.Where there is a question, they need to consult the dis-ability services offices. Again, the more informationprovided by the applicant, the better the ability tomake an appropriate match. One admission officerwhose institution has a respected LD programcommented, “We will give students reasonable accom-modations in class but not remedial classes.” Requestsfor accommodations can be denied. Jarrow (1997)gives three reasons that schools can deny an accommo-dation: (a) it threatens the health or safety of others; (b)it would require substantial changes to an essential ele-ment of the curriculum; or (c) it would cause unduefinancial or administrative burden.

Admission officers were consistent in their responsesto what impact seeing the flag has on their decision-mak-ing process. When probed, admission officers, particu-larly at the selective institutions, reported overwhelm-ingly that the presence of the flag actually helps a studentwith a disability rather than hurts their chances ofadmission. The flag serves to alert the admission officeto a possible problem, inconsistency, or anomaly on thetranscript that, without the flag, might have rendered thecandidate inadmissible. An example given by a numberof admission officers was the candidate who had lowgrades in some mathematics courses that normallywould take him or her out of the range for admission toa particular college. The flag might indicate that the stu-dent has a math-related disability that could be properlyaccommodated. That information might make the stu-dent a viable candidate for admission. Without the flag,the student would likely be denied admission because allthe admission officer would see are the low grades.

Admission officers said that they give students withdisabilities and who self-disclose extra consideration. Asone interviewee commented, “They cut slack for kidswho self-disclose and might otherwise be denied.” Thus,not only does the flag appear to alert institutions to theneed for appropriate services (information that cannot beused to deny admission), but it also may provide infor-mation that provides an advantage to the student whomight otherwise have been denied admission. Admissionofficers say that they look more closely at the applicant,enabling them to make a better assessment. They mayadjust their expectations, relying more on grades andtranscripts, rather than on test scores. The flag leads themto assume the student has a disability and “tunes theminto information to provide help to the student.”Overwhelmingly, the admission officers said that the flagis an advantage for the applicant with a disability.

Although some admission officers do not actually seethe flag because it may not have been transmitted viadatatape, in most cases it appears at some point in thedeliberation process. One respondent noted that “theflag is an issue between ETS and the student.” Anothersaid, “The flag represents reality. It is not a positive ora negative thing.” For some, the flag has no impact, nei-ther helping nor hindering a decision. Yet, “Without theflag, they would treat everyone the same, but they aren’tthe same.” Many admission officers truly believe thatfar more students are benefiting from the flag than areharmed by it. “Removing the flag would actually do aninjustice to the disabled student.” The professionalsinterviewed who have family members with disabilitiesalso believe that the flag is beneficial to the applicant.

Of the 84 interviews with admission officers, therewere only two cases in which a possible negative

19

consequence for the applicant with a disability could beinferred. One interviewee was “confident there is somediscrimination (authors’ note: respondent means disad-vantage to the student) in selection where there areblind cutoffs.” Another respondent noted that candi-dates with disabilities require more attention andresources than other students, which could be a con-cern, but quickly added that his institution does not dis-criminate against applicants with disabilities.

The interviews yielded additional information aboutflagging, its impact, and interpretations made based onthe flag. Admission officers generally believe that theflag, which is a reference point, simply tells them aboutthe conditions under which the student was tested.Scores from nonstandard and standard administrationsshould not be treated differently. The scores areaccepted at face value. However, as noted previously,the flag allows the admission office to be more flexibleand to take affirmative steps for special populations.

According to the respondents, admission officersneed to understand the score behind the flag.Respondents were adamant about what would happenif the flagging policy were abandoned: Eliminating theflag will make test scores harder to interpret. Admissionoffices would lose valuable information and thereby beforced to make less accurate decisions. The test scoreswould become less reliable. The credibility of the scoreswill be jeopardized due, in part, to their expectationthat there would be increasing numbers of requests forextended time. The fear among admission officers isthat if flagging is curtailed, SAT scores will becomeinflated and therefore less predictive. They would nolonger be able to trust what the scores mean. Removalof the flag would contaminate the testing process. Itwould further hurt the student who needs an accommo-dation. It also would be potentially discriminatory forstudents who have taken standard administrations.Thus, admission officers feel that eliminating the flagwould be a disservice to all students.

Admission officers foresee problems if flagging iseliminated. One admission officer commented that, “Ifyou get rid of the flag, there is self-disclosure, but with-out corroboration. If there is no self-disclosure, there isno impact.” Another admission officer noted that with-out the flag, the process will become a “nightmare” andthat the SAT will be eliminated from admissions. “Thefloodgates will open and we will be inundated.” Moreand more students will push the limits of diagnoses, andthus imperil the test. Several institutions vehementlystated that they would drop the SAT altogether if flag-ging is discontinued. One admission officer predictedthat the 200 most selective institutions would cease touse the SAT. Another respondent disagreed, cautioning

that “institutions would need to think carefully beforetaking action.”

Equity and abuse of the system are two topics thatrepeatedly were discussed by the admission officers. Theissues are intertwined and can almost be seen as theendpoints of a continuum of service. At one end of thespectrum, there are the students (often of financialmeans) who receive diagnoses, accommodations, andservices and, at the other end, there are the students(often less affluent) for whom no services have everbeen provided. From the perspective of the admissionofficers, most students who do receive services havelegitimate needs and diagnoses. But admission officersbelieve that there also are students who receive unsub-stantiated diagnoses by manipulating the system to theiradvantage. Given the increasing number of studentswho are receiving diagnoses of ADHD or LD and thegeographical, ethnic, and economic patterns that arediscernable, the admission officers perceive this situa-tion to be an equity issue that pits the disadvantagedagainst the advantaged, the poor against the affluent,and the minority students against white students.

Admission officers are convinced that there is“rampant” manipulation of the system, which is objec-tionable and inappropriate. Such abuse diminishes thevalidity of the process and further disadvantages theindividuals who legitimately need accommodations andthose students who currently are not being well servedby the system. One admission officer bluntly noted, “itis the disability community who is getting screwed bythe manipulation.” Another interviewee stated, “Thekids with real disabilities are the ones getting hurt bythis abuse.” One respondent who has a child withADHD said, “The falsification and spurious diagnosesdo more of a disservice to the legitimate cases.”Admission officers expressed frustration with the per-ceived manipulation of the system and the increasingnumbers of questionable disabilities that emerge at thetime of the PSAT/NMSQT or SAT. As one respondentstated, “We don’t want to minimize the need for kidswith legitimate disabilities, but the abuse is ruining it.”

The admission officers commented that some fami-lies will do anything they can to gain an advantage incollege admission. Some parents see a diagnosis of a dis-ability as one way to get a preferential treatment.Families with awareness, education, and money haveaccess to experts, resources, knowledge, advocacy,assertiveness, and power. Their children can take theSAT multiple times and have access to tutors and testpreparation courses, despite the evidence of limitedimpact (Powers and Rock, 1999). The poor do not havesuch access to resources and, thus, become further dis-advantaged.

20

According to the admission officers we interviewed,there are many frustrated families that need an excusefor the children not living up to parental expectations.One respondent noted, “The level of performance of thekid is reflective of the parents’ success.” In some cases,a diagnosis of ADHD becomes a convenient explana-tion for average performance. Many felt that studentswho are comfortable with their disability will not havea problem with the admission process or with flagging,but the abusers will have something about which toworry.

Admission officers noted that parents with financialmeans can seek out the services of private experts toobtain diagnoses, whereas less affluent families mustrely on school personnel or practitioners who do probono work. Admission officers are well aware of thissituation because they see better documentation fromstudents in private or high SES schools. The quality ofdocumentation is yet another way that the playing fieldis not currently level. Admission officers also look atwho has written the documentation because “there area lot of charlatans out there.” They say they knowwhich private experts are being paid sometimes morethan $5,000 to produce a diagnosis of a disability. Theyreport that, in an increasingly litigious world, there is agrowing cadre of independent educational counselorswho will be most willing to provide diagnoses.

Admission officers identified specific geographicallocations that seem to yield many of the questionablediagnoses. They tend to confirm the findings describedby Weiss (2000a). In fact, Weiss’s article was thestimulus for a great deal of discussion in the admissioncommunity. The respondents reported that accommo-dations disproportionately come from major metropol-itan centers such as the New York area (Connecticut,New Jersey, Westchester County); suburbanWashington, DC, specific suburban areas in the South(Atlanta and New Orleans), and private schools in NewEngland.

There is, however, another side of this coin. There aremany students who are not being served by the currentsystem, students who quite likely have legitimatedisabilities but receive no diagnoses, services, or accom-modations. They lack parental advocates or guidancecounselors with the time to help them negotiate the sys-tem. Admission officers are extremely concerned aboutthe students who need accommodations but are notgetting them. Many institutions reported that they haverarely seen students of color, those from disadvantagedhigh schools, or poor students applying with accommo-dations. One representative from a Historically BlackCollege said he had never seen a student with adisability. Admission officers reported that they rarely

see students from rural areas, inner cities, or the under-privileged applying for accommodations.

This trend is not only confirmed by the observationsof the admission officers but also by the research resultsreported previously (Cahalan, 2000; Leatherman, 2000;Weiss, 2000c). Responding to the initial analyses of thefrequency of accommodations by geographical area, theinterviews tried to gain more specific information aboutwhy the Southern states were particularly underrepre-sented in terms of services received in high schools,accommodations on the SAT, and students with accom-modations applying to institutions of higher educationin the South. According to the admission officers, thenature of the college admission competition is differentin the Southern states in comparison to New Englandand certain other areas of the country. The admissionofficers note that New England has more highly selec-tive and private colleges, whereas the South has morepublic, less selective universities, as well as largecommunity college systems. There is a strong traditionof public education in the South. There also are fewerindependent counselors in the South and fewer studentsapplying for early decision to college. However, becausethere are some pockets of affluence in the South, such asAtlanta and New Orleans, these suburban areas tend toshow patterns of requests for accommodations andadmission trends similar to those of New England.

Admission officers have noted cultural issues thatmay prevent a student with a disability from seeking andobtaining accommodations. Cultural stigmas aboutbeing singled out and having a disability are hard toovercome. Admission officers have expressed concernabout underrepresentation among certain ethnic groups.But the problem is not just an ethnic or cultural issue. Itis also highly related to SES and parental education.

A striking example comes from one of the mostrespected disabilities programs in higher educationwhere, due to cultural and economic issues, admissionofficers and administrators reported that they cannotget underrepresented students from their own state toenroll, although out-of-state students flock to this pro-gram. The state in which this institution is located hastwo large minority groups in whose cultures admittinga disability is not acceptable, according to admissionand disability service center staff. A major concern ishow to overcome such beliefs in order to provide theneeded services. Part of the problem is educating theguidance counselors and teachers, while also recogniz-ing and overcoming cultural stigmas. The program nowis beginning outreach activities at the elementary andmiddle school grades, trying to identify students withpotential disabilities early and get them into the pipelineof services.

21

The interviews with admission officers yielded sever-al ideas for activities that could have a positive impacton how students with disabilities might be better servedwithin the admission process. The admission officersfirst commented that the College Board and ETS needto be more proactive in terms of documenting qualifica-tions for extended time and other accommodations.Although they believe that the current documentationguidelines are helpful and have improved, they wouldlike to see them made even stricter. They also report thatthere needs to be more credibility in the review process.Some admission officers think that ETS and the CollegeBoard should do the reviews, thereby removing the bur-den from the guidance counselors and trying to deterthe growing amount of abuse that they perceive. Severaladmission officers commented about Senate Bill 1853(S. 1853, 2000) presented to the California StateLegislature in an attempt to remediate some of the per-ceived problems with the review system. The intent ofthe legislation would be to take the entire certificationprocess out of the hands of the schools and to have theCollege Board conduct the reviews.

Admission officers also suggested that training andeducational outreach would be effective services. Theyare concerned about the lack of knowledge and aware-ness of services to students with disabilities on the partof some guidance counselors. Admission officers believethat most counselors have sufficient knowledge aboutdisabilities, the certification process, and the law, butthere are others who are uninformed, unaware, and toooverburdened to handle students with disabilities in anappropriate manner. The admission officers believe thatthe reputations of the guidance counselors are on theline, and if they were able to do their job adequately(i.e., provide more accurate screening of applicantsseeking accommodations), there might not be a need forthe flag. From their perspective, some counselors arenot doing their job, causing the system to break down.Workshops, training, and other outreach activitiesmight be potential sources of remediation.

Admission officers also recommended that theCollege Board and ETS try to educate parents about therole of test scores in the admission process, to dispel themyth that the numbers are all that matters. They sug-gested a summary paper that could be disseminated toparents to provide facts and outline the process as apotential outreach activity. Some admission staff believethat a big part of the problem is that parents simply donot trust the colleges in terms of equitable admissionpolicies. There needs to be an effort to alleviate thatproblem. Admission staff also could benefit from train-ing on the standards, guidelines, and regulations thatgovern applications for students with disabilities. They

recognize that they must increase their level of sensitiv-ity toward applicants with disabilities, but they alsomust exist in a system that has finite resources.Although the legality of the following statement is ques-tionable, one respondent commented that given thefinances, “we have a zero sum game in which we areoften taking resources away from the physicallydisabled because of the growing number of ADHD andLD students.”

Extended time appears to be unavoidably linked tothe flagging debate. One admission officer noted,“Timing is at the heart of the matter, not so much as theflag.” The assumption everyone makes is that the moretime that is given to students, the better the scores, andtherefore the better chance of admission. Research cur-rently is being conducted to examine this issue(Bridgeman, Curley, and Trapani, in progress;Bridgeman and Mandinach, in progress; Mandinach,Bridgeman, Cahalan, and Trapani, in progress). Someadmission officers suggest that there should be auniversal untimed test, taking away the timing andspeededness factors. Others believe that the CollegeBoard and ETS must either flag or go to extended timetests. Some schools are concerned about potential dif-ferential impact and restricted range problems, giventhe generally high scores of their applicants. Theybelieve that extra time might make the interpretation ofscores difficult or impossible. “Throwing it open toextended time muddies the water. We won’t know whatwe are looking at.”

To that end, many admission officers noted the needfor research on three specific topics that would informthe process. First and foremost, they asked for researchto determine the impact of extended time on test per-formance. Even the institutions that do not require theSAT suggested a timing study. They want to know theextent to which time is a determining factor in perfor-mance for all test-takers. Further, they want to know ifextra time differentially impacts different groups of stu-dents (e.g., categorized by ethnicity, gender, ability).Because many people have suggested that the CollegeBoard and ETS eliminate test timing, the organizationsmust address the potential ramifications of speedednessand timing as well as the practical implications oftesting millions of students without time constraints.

The second research topic is predictive validity. Whatimpact does the provision of accommodations have onthe predictive validity of the test? The admission officersheretofore have assumed that the College Board andETS have conducted appropriate validity studies. Thereneed to be studies of predictive validity using GPA overthe course of a college career and degree completion.There also need to be studies of predictive validity

22

relative to the continuation of services once studentsenroll in higher educational institutions and either do ordo not receive further accommodations.

The third area where they suggest that research isneeded is to determine if there are differential acceptancerates that may indicate patterns of sensitivity or poten-tial discrimination. Is the rate of acceptance for appli-cants with disabilities equivalent, better, or worse thanfor those who take standard administrations? An infer-ence can be made that if the rate is equivalent or better,then there is a level of sensitivity toward candidates withdisabilities. However, if the rate is lower, there would bean indication of potential discrimination.

Colleges should regularly conduct such institutionalresearch. One college reported that it compares studentsfrom standard administrations to those who have self-disclosed and those with flagged scores who have notdisclosed to determine how well the college is doing inserving its candidates with disabilities. Other schoolsexamine differential graduation rates between studentswho received help from disability services offices andthe general student population. Still another universityregularly tracks student performance through GPA,dropout rates, and academic probation rates. However,such institutional research is sparse, and it is nonexis-tent at most colleges.

Interviews withGuidance Counselors The guidance counselors interviewed clearly play a cru-cial role in college admission given their responsibilityto provide accurate information and informed advice.The counselors feel, however, that they also are caughtin the middle of a highly politicized and volatile process.They recognize the need for accuracy and honesty inscore use and say that admission officers must maintainthe integrity of the process. It must be a process thatyields informed decisions that are good for both theinstitutions and the students by relying on accurateinformation that helps at all levels.

For example, a number of the guidance counselorswho also have had experience in admission offices notethe differences in perspectives of the two groups con-cerning the role of SAT scores and the motivation of theinstitutions of higher education. Admission officers con-sistently say that the SAT is only one piece of dataamong many others that are used to make decisions onapplicants. In contrast, guidance counselors believe thatthere is overreliance on test scores on the part of admis-sion offices. One guidance counselor, a former admis-sion staffer, noted that what admission offices do withthe flag depends on their knowledge and understanding

of and experience with disabilities and related regula-tions. Thus there is an expressed concern that admissionstaff at some small colleges with limited endowmentsmay not understand the intricacies of the law and maylack resources and sophistication to provide therequired services to students with disabilities.

Guidance counselors are involved in the process ofidentifying and helping to provide services to students.It is important that they have some familiarity with thelegal regulations and College Board documentationguidelines. That is not always the case, however. At thesame time, they have to deal with the increasing numberof students with disabilities as well as the mountingpressure from parents, experts, and lawyers who maythreaten legal action if students do not receive docu-mentation for their disabilities. Some of the counselorsinterviewed expressed anger that they have to deal withflagging and the resulting problems, while otherssuggest that the solution is for the entire process to betaken out of their hands. They would like the CollegeBoard and ETS to assume more responsibility for thereview process through even more stringent policies andguidelines. They are frustrated with how some parentsmanipulate the existing guidelines to their advantage.

The counselors acknowledge that there are manypatterns of learning disabilities that emerge throughoutstudents’ academic experiences. Some students receiveIEP’s as early as first grade, whereas others do notobtain diagnoses until later grades. Late diagnoses maybe entirely legitimate, with students effectively usingcompensatory skills up to a point where they acknowl-edge the need for help. Additionally, high achieving stu-dents can have learning disabilities. Other counselorstruly believe that learning disabilities should emergeearly in the high school years, if not before, and not atthe time of college admission testing. There is a growingconcern as to why some students never receive accom-modations in the classroom, but then request them oncollege admission tests such as the SAT. Some coun-selors actually discourage seeking accommodations onthe SAT because they want to see how the students willdo under standard conditions first, a practice that maynot be in the best interest of students with disabilities.Some counselors believe that only students with severedisabilities should receive accommodations or extendedtime. Further, for students with no history of accommo-dations or students who have approved accommoda-tions but choose not to use them for school testing, theCollege Board will not approve an accommodationwithout going through the appeal process.

Many counselors expressed concern about the extentto which students feel a sense of entitlement. The coun-selors want students with disabilities to be empowered

23

and serve as self-advocates. Self-disclosure is one of theways that students can be empowered. They believe thatstudents with legitimate disabilities should be open anddisclose. One counselor noted that, “No student shouldrequest an accommodation if the kid is not going to self-disclose. It’s just dishonest.” But some parents do notfavor self-disclosure, fearing stigmatization, and say theadmission process may make students afraid to disclose.On one side, many counselors support the flag becauseit encourages disclosure and fairer decisions, whereasothers believe that the flag inappropriately forces dis-closure.

Many of the counselors noted that they are not serv-ing the best interests of the student if they have to hideinformation from the admission offices. Some believethat they have a professional obligation to report a dis-ability and that it is unethical to withhold information.Information is in and of itself not discriminatory, theyfeel. If the process is honest and fair, the flag is not dis-criminatory. It provides contextual information thathelps the admission office understand the candidate.

Most guidance counselors want the flag preservedand used correctly to make good decisions about thestudent. All the flag says is that the test was taken undernonstandard conditions, they emphasize. There is abelief that the flag is advantageous in that it alerts theinstitution to the need for services. It is thus an avenuefor receiving the needed help for students with disabili-ties. As one counselor notes, “parents with childrenwho have legitimate disabilities do not object to the flagbecause they will still need accommodations.”However, a small number of counselors expressed con-cern about the impact of the flag and the extent towhich it can “level the playing field.” Other counselorsnoted that withholding the flag would result in convey-ing misinformation that is unfair to those who takestandard administrations.

What would happen if the flag were removed? Manycounselors fear that “the floodgates will open,” andthat the flag therefore needs to be kept to maintain thelegitimacy of the process. They are concerned that therewill be a significant increase in the number of studentsrequesting accommodations without the flag. Onecounselor noted, “Do not remove the flag. It is the onlyleverage we have. If removed, the floodgates will openand it will become a farce. It is the only deterrent.”

Documentation for disabilities and guidelines forrequesting accommodations provide another means ofmaintaining the integrity of the process. Many coun-selors mentioned the recent improvements in theCollege Board and ETS guidelines and review process,noting that the two organizations provide checks andbalances in the process, as well as better instruction on

diagnoses. But they say that there needs to be moreexplicit disclaimers that there are no guarantees thataccommodations will be granted. The counselors notedthat while the regulations keep down the numbers ofpeople who attempt to manipulate the system, they stillare not a sufficient deterrent.

According to the guidance counselors, there is acontinuum of parental advocacy that ranges fromnonexistent to outright abusive in order to secure diag-noses, services, and accommodations for their children.There are many complex issues and variables involved inthe process that can be categorized in terms of the legit-imacy of diagnoses in contrast to abuse of the system.What appears to be the key variable is money: Thosewho have more resources, awareness, knowledge, advo-cacy, and power are able to obtain better services fortheir children who legitimately, and at times less legiti-mately, deserve them. In contrast, there are students whoremain unserved because there is no one within the sys-tem to act as an advocate on their behalf. So while the“haves” receive services, the “have-nots” become furtherdisadvantaged, causing serious inequalities.

The guidance counselors we interviewed report thatmore affluent parents are stronger advocates for theirchildren. They are knowledgeable about and have themeans to go to private sources for the needed diagnoses.In contrast, less knowledgeable families are at a disad-vantage.

Many of the guidance counselors note that it is veryrare to see students of color or those from inner citiesand rural areas applying for a testing accommodation.They question the equity of high schools that serve theaffluent having many students requesting test accom-modations, whereas those schools in disadvantaged andlow-income neighborhoods have few or no requests foraccommodations. Some guidance counselors havereported that they have never seen a request for accom-modation for admission testing in their school. Suchreports are all too frequent and come from rural areasall over the country, particularly in the South, as well asfrom urban areas. Why are there disproportionately lowor no requests for accommodations in large, inner-citydistricts or small, rural schools, the counselors ask? Thisis an especially troublesome issue considering theconcern that minority students are being overidentifiedas mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed andtracked into special education courses (Paige, 2001).Are students with disabilities going undetected in suchenvironments, slipping through the cracks because thereis no advocacy and limited awareness with regard toaccommodations on college admission tests for studentswith disabilities? The concern for students who are notbeing served by the current system is real, they say.

24

Part of their concern is that school systems in certainparts of the country are contributing to the equity prob-lem. Staff may not be trained to handle disabilities, andthey lack the knowledge, sophistication, resources, andadministrative support to abide by the legal guidelines.There are some school systems that have procedures inplace for specific outreach to at-risk groups. They pro-vide fee waivers and free SAT preparation courses forstudents who cannot afford them. Even in such districts,however, there are equity problems created by theCollege Board guidelines and regulations. One districtmentioned that the guidelines require current documen-tation prior to taking the standardized tests. Affluentstudents who already have existing documentation butneed it to be updated can readily go to private practi-tioners. The district cannot pay for the retesting,causing further impediments for the poor students. (n.b.Schools only have to redo evaluations that the teamresponsible for determining the student’s IEP says arenecessary. The College Board does not require that allevaluative tests automatically be redone. B. Robinson,personal communication, December 8, 2000.)

Counselors noted an additional problem is thatcertain cultures tend to stigmatize both mental andphysical disabilities. Respondents have reported thatindividuals with disabilities among the Hispanics,African Americans, and many Pacific Rim immigrantgroups are stigmatized and therefore are not being wellserved by the system. While Hispanics and AfricanAmericans worry about political, social, and economicramifications of being labeled as disabled, the Asiangroups regard a disability as a matter of shame. Theseethnic groups are less likely to want their children sin-gled out, labeled, diagnosed, and given services. Theyfear that referrals may mean that the child will belabeled, placed into the “slower track” and will fall intowhat they consider the self-fulfilling, negative prophecyof special education. One district supervisor suggeststhat all-inclusive programs where students are not sin-gled out may help to alleviate part of the problem.Community education is another partial solution.

The majority of the guidance counselors interviewedraised the issue of abuse within the system and how thatimpacts students with legitimate disabilities and thosewho abide by the rules. According to many respondents,there is no question that there is abuse. How extensiveit is remains an empirical question. Many counselorsrecognize that “most parents have been reasonable andtry to do the right thing. Some go overboard to themax.” There are many savvy parents who are ethicaland refuse to manipulate the process. Counselors main-tain, however, that the allegations of abuse are well-founded and that they all know the worst abusers. In

fact, some parents are quite overt about how theymanipulate the system. Their children do not suffer thestigma of a disability. Instead, parents may believe it isfashionable to have ADHD or LD.

Respondents reported that affluent parents who haveenough clout will use whatever means necessary toobtain services for their children. Guidance counselorsdepict them as aggressive consumers. In some commu-nities, counselors say, parents band together to discusshow to manipulate the system. There is a growing cadreof professionals and attorneys who actively solicitparents through encounter group meetings. Guidancecounselors may be threatened with lawsuits if parentsdo not get what they want. To that point, an attorneytracked down two guidance counselors 1,000 milesfrom home in the midst of their interview for this studyto threaten them with a lawsuit if a particular studentwas not given the documentation needed for the SATProgram Student Eligibility Form.

Counselors commented that some parents use intimi-dation tactics with school personnel, even when thestudents do not want the test accommodations or believethat they need them. One counselor reported a commentmade by a frustrated student: “I’m working to myability, but mom is looking for an excuse.” Other par-ents shift the blame to the school for poor performanceor unmet expectations. For example, when test prepara-tion courses do not work to their satisfaction, they thenseek a diagnosis of LD and accommodation of extratime.

Counselors are concerned about the impact of theabuse on the student. One cautioned, “Be careful whatyou wish for.” Another noted, “There is tremendousparental pressure with school services. The processshould be more difficult.”

The counselors acknowledge that they should not bepushed by pressure from parents, but say that they oftenare caught in the midst of a dysfunctional process.Many counselors believe that if all cases were legiti-mate, then flagging would not be a problem. Anothercounselor adds, “While folks like me are holding themoral ground, others are manipulating the system forthe perceived advantage that is questionable.” Theabuse not only affects the student for whom the advan-tage is sought, but impacts the legitimately disabled andothers who do not manipulate the system. Many coun-selors raised concerns about the effect on kids who arenot manipulating the process. One counselor comment-ed that abuse “ruins the morale in competitive highschools when some students go for accommodationsand others play it straight.” Students come home andreport that everyone else is getting extra time and theywonder why they can’t have it.

25

The interviews indicated that there is a wide range ofknowledge among guidance counselors concerning thevarious educational plans, necessary documentation,legal issues, and test accommodations. Some counselorsare extremely knowledgeable with respect to these com-plex policies and practices, whereas others find theprocess confusing. A number of counselors were notfamiliar with the flag, one asking, “What’s a flag?” Onesupervisor of guidance counselors for a large, suburbandistrict raised the issue of stunted professional growthwithin the profession, saying that a problem exists withsome older guidance counselors who may not be willingto keep up with new issues and ideas.

How does the guidance profession remain knowl-edgeable about this rapidly changing field? Theguidance counselors believe that there is a need toincrease awareness and knowledge, perhaps throughoutreach from professional organizations. Workshopshave been conducted and publications disseminated,they say, but the outreach does not go far enough. Thereare many underserved areas where counselors have noprofessional affiliations, no resources, and apparentlyno interest in continuing education. There is a sensefrom the counselors that the College Board and ETS,perhaps in collaboration with NACAC, local organiza-tions, and school districts, could provide a valuable ser-vice in the form of workshops not just for counselors,but also for parents, to educate them about services forstudents with disabilities and test accommodations.Such workshops also could serve to dispel some of thecultural stigmas if conducted in nonthreatening ways.

Many counselors do not have the resources to attendprofessional meetings to enhance their level of aware-ness and knowledge, nor do they have resources in theirschools to deal with disabilities and accommodations inan appropriate manner, despite the federal regulationsthat mandate such provisions.

Outreach is a real issue. Professional organizationssuch as NACAC and the College Board have tried vari-ous means of outreach. For example, the College Boardgives regional workshops on services for students withdisabilities aimed at school teams that include guidancecounselors. The workshops are conducted locally at nocost or at minimal cost to the schools. Those given inthe New England area generally are well attended.Attendance for those given in the West differs depend-ing on location. It is reported that the Californiaworkshops are well attended but the ones in Arizona,Colorado, and the Pacific Northwest are often canceleddue to lack of interest. Ensuring that guidancecounselors are knowledgeable can be problematic. Oneadmission officer in the South volunteers free time inlocal high schools to serve as a resource person to stu-

dents because the guidance counselors lack the time andthe resources to provide appropriate services to theirstudents.

According to the interviewees, there needs to be cred-ible and knowledgeable professionals not only inschools and admission offices, but also within theteacher corps, among parents, and in the medical andpsychological communities. Guidance counselorssuspect that there is not enough expertise in admissionoffices (the same accusations have been made of guid-ance counselors by admission staff, as noted above).Most respondents agree that parents, particularly thosewho are poor, members of a minority group, or resi-dents of underserved areas, need to be better informedso that they can ask the right questions on behalf oftheir children with disabilities. Accurate informationmust be disseminated to stimulate community involve-ment through forums for discussion, school leadership,and models of success for underserved groups. Theinterviews yielded information about two such success-ful models in large urban areas where there are openforums and consortia that provide a means of discussingrelevant information among community members andprofessionals.

One counselor provided the following commentsthat indicate some progress, but there is much moreeducational and outreach work to be done: “With ADAthere has been an improvement in training and aware-ness levels have increased. We have overcome the bias ofdisability. And we ask better questions. We get betterinformation. We can help the person and provide themwith a direction. But there is more that can and must bedone.”

Research results on relevant topics may serve toprovide valuable data to help the professionals in thefield make informed decisions. The research topic thatwas discussed in numerous interviews was the impactof extended time on test scores for students with andwithout disabilities. The counselors stated several rea-sons for seeking research on timing issues. First, theywant to know what impact extended time has on per-formance, because they are constantly trying to con-tend with the perception that more time results inincreased scores. Second, they are concerned aboutdifferential impact. They are worried that extra timemight help some but not all students. Because theyfeel some students might benefit from extra time, butnot significantly, some counselors suggest that stu-dents take a standard administration first to serve asa baseline.

Third, they want to know how much time is enoughtime. Observations made by counselors who also serveas test center supervisors indicate that many students

26

who have been granted extended time finish the test atthe same time as those taking standard administrations.The counselors are nevertheless pressured by parentswho apparently believe that extended time is used anddoes make a difference in scores, as well as by those whowant not just extended time but completely untimedtests. Although some counselors suggest opening thetests up to extended time for all students, others recog-nize that untimed or extended time tests may not beappropriate for everyone. Many counselors believe it isneither appropriate nor practical to provide open timingto everyone, given that only a small percent of the pop-ulation is disabled. The other reason given by counselorsfor conducting a study on the impact of timing is basedon the deterrence argument. The counselors believe thatone of the prime methods for deterring the trends ofabuse of diagnoses and test accommodations is to showscientifically that extended time does not improve testperformance for nondisabled test-takers, as is apparentlythe perception among parents and students.

Interviews with Disability Service ProvidersThe disability service providers who were interviewedrepresent a range of institutions. Some were from highlyselective, private universities, some from large, stateuniversities, and others from less selective public andprivate institutions. Many of the respondents recog-nized that providing appropriate services to studentswith disabilities is a systemic issue, not easily deliveredand fraught with problems. They perceive the flag to beone hurdle that should be removed, and stress the needfor students to receive appropriate counseling. Someproviders noted that they have seen too many instancesof harm in the course of the admission process, withmany students not getting the services they need due toa fear of discrimination.

From the perspective of some disability serviceproviders, the flag takes away the student’s right toself-disclosure. The providers do, however, urge stu-dents to self-disclose because it indicates that theyhave come to terms with their disability and are takingsteps to serve as self-advocates. The providersacknowledge that disclosure does not guaranteeadmission to an institution, but believe that it doesalert the admission office to the disability. There is,however, the perception that admission offices aremore oriented to rejection than to admission, particu-larly when it comes to candidates with disabilities. Theproviders hasten to note that the goal of admissionoffices is to try to make a good decision for the studentand the institution.

The disability service providers recognize that it isimportant for the education and counseling process tobegin early and work effectively to help students withdisabilities. But there are numerous problems. Onedisability service provider noted that many guidancecounselors are “clueless and can’t or won’t play aneffective role in the process.” Their perception is thatpoor high school counseling often leads to bad advicethat will have a lifelong impact. The fear is that manyguidance counselors have no awareness or knowledgeof the standards and guidelines for requests for testaccommodations, thereby creating misinformation,confusion, and, ultimately, students who are notappropriately served. The providers believe that it isincumbent upon professional organizations to serve as astimulus for training. The need for education extendsbeyond the guidance counselors to other professionals.Teachers, professors, admission officers, and the generalpublic all need to be educated about certification,accommodations, and guidelines.

The College Board guidelines stipulate that studentsshould be reviewed individually, on a case-by-case basis.However, as the providers note, the actual process ofobtaining an accommodation sometimes works againstthis goal. Some students have long histories of accom-modations, whereas others have no prior history or askfor more than is appropriate for the specific diagnoses.Further, gross categorization is problematic. There aremany variations within diagnostic categories thatrequire individual assessment and limit the extent towhich general statements can be made. One providernoted that this balance between the general and theindividual makes it difficult to determine appropriateaccommodations, and particularly challenging to assigneffective timing parameters. As noted previously, thesediagnostic issues also make research difficult.

The requirement for case-by-case assessment assumesfirst, that institutions are aware that a student has a dis-ability, and, second, that a completely formulaicapproach is not used for admission decisions. As notedabove, some schools use eligibility indices of test scoresand GPAs as cutoffs to make admission decisions. If theschool relies solely on such numbers, there is little flex-ibility for alternative interpretations and decisions. Insome institutions, admission offices seek input and clar-ification from the disability services offices, althoughthere may be no direct impact on a decision. But themore information admission offices have, the bettertheir decisions are likely to be. Further, the disabilityservice providers acknowledge that, even without theflag or self-disclosure, admission officers often can tellthat a student has a disability using other information,a confirmation of the data from the interviews with

27

admission officers. Such indicators might be a year offfrom school, the curriculum completed, course designa-tions, course waivers, and transferring to one or moreschools, also called school jumping.

According to the providers, individual assessment andvoluntary self-disclosure also would deter admissionoffices from making potentially inaccurate assumptionsabout individual students based solely on patterns andgroup trends, such as the timing of a diagnosis. Disabilityservice providers are quick to reinforce that legitimatedisabilities can be diagnosed at almost any time in a stu-dent’s life. Just because a student receives a diagnosis atthe time of standardized testing does not mean that thediagnosis is illegitimate or even that it should be consid-ered suspicious. Many students have developed compen-satory strategies that at some point no longer work effec-tively given increasing intellectual demands of furtherstudy. It is entirely legitimate for the student to seek helpthrough an accommodation when this occurs.

The disability service providers acknowledge thatfinancial and social capital play a large role in whoreceives accommodations and who is not well served.As pointed out by admission officers and guidancecounselors, families with money, resources, andadvocacy receive services. They can pay for betterdocumentation and can provide a private education fortheir children. The problem for those who can afford toprovide legitimate services for their children is thatmore affluent families, in their quest for accommoda-tions, may abuse the system. The respondents reportedthat those families put pressure on the schools andcounselors in overly aggressive ways, “seek diagnosesthrough diagnostic mills,” and threaten litigation if theservices they seek are not approved. As one disabilityservice provider noted, however, parents make the dif-ference and they often need to be pushy and motivatedto negotiate the system. What some perceive as abusemay really be a survival strategy, providers say.

The providers also recognize that there are manyunderserved groups, particularly the financially andgeographically disadvantaged (rural and urban locations)and minority students. All but one of the disability serviceproviders commented that there are few or no minoritygroup members who request test accommodations.Minority students have less access, fewer role models,fewer advocates, and fewer resources they say. Theserespondents also agreed that disabilities are stigmatized ina number of cultures, therefore decreasing the probabilitythat a minority student would receive appropriate services,even if needed. In only one instance did the disability ser-vice provider at a public university note that the school isserving a disproportionate number of minority studentsbecause of its institutional stress on diversity and retention.

The disability service providers, consistent with theother groups interviewed, also stated the need to con-duct research on the impact of timing, speededness, andpredictive validity. They believe that unlimited timingwould be a good thing, although they acknowledge thatmany students who request extended time do not use it.

Interviews withEducational ConsultantsThe interviews with the educational consultants yieldedseveral topics of importance and highlighted issues ofconcern for all the participants in the admission process.First and foremost, they stressed the need for improvingthe level of awareness and sophistication for everyone.They noted the need for more broad-scope workshopsfor guidance counselors as well as teachers. Even whenorganizations such as NACAC or the College Boardconduct workshops, the “haves” come and the “have-nots” do not attend, they say. More effective means ofdisseminating information need to be found,particularly for schools in rural, urban, and economi-cally disadvantaged communities.

Equity also was an underlying theme. The consul-tants expressed concern that poor high schools rarelythink about test accommodations for their studentswith disabilities. Thus, these students, despite havinglegitimate needs, are not receiving in-school services andtest accommodations, whereas students whose familiesand schools have awareness, advocacy, and the financialmeans do receive accommodations. The issue is espe-cially apparent at some private schools where there arehigh proportions of affluent families and a great deal ofparental pressure on students to perform.

The consultants discussed the allegations concerningabuse of the system and focused on “aggressive parentswho will stop at nothing to get what they want,” as wellas abuse on the part of professionals. Consultantsreport large increases in the number of diagnoses oflearning disabilities, even at the primary level. They feelthat the parents are the main problem, not the students.“Parents often set unreasonably high expectations, andwhen they are not met, they look for an excuse.” Doingso is not good for the students or the institutions towhich they are applying. In their efforts to advocate onbehalf of their children, “the parents are taking awaythe opportunity for the students to become self-advocates, and also providing ripe pickings for a rapidlygrowing field of professionals who are only too willingto provide spurious documentation.” The consultantscommented about “emerging encounter groupsorganized by so-called medical and legal experts thatare tantamount to ambulance chasing.” They believe

28

that such behavior creates suspicion in the admissionprocess and ruins it for the legitimate practitioners.

The consultants stressed the need for honesty andintegrity throughout the admission process, where thebasic objective should be to find an appropriate fit betweenthe student and the institution. The student should not beplaced in a position where there is a high probability offailure. This means that guidance counselors must provideappropriate recommendations. The consultants also com-mented that some admission offices are better than othersat reviewing applicants with disabilities fairly, but they saythe review process relies on self-disclosure or the flag. Theconsultants promote the idea of self-disclosure because itindicates that the student has come to terms with his or herdisability and can then become a better self-advocate. Self-disclosure, they believe, allows a better clarification of theneed for appropriate services and subsequent services pro-vided. If there is no self-disclosure, there is also likely to bea certain level of suspicion on the part of the admissionoffice because of the perception that individuals are notforthcoming and have something to hide.

The consultants also commented that students withdisabilities must develop compensatory skills that can beused effectively throughout their educational careers.Some students may balk at using accommodationsbecause such compensatory strategies have been success-ful for them in the past. Other students seek the accom-modations later in their educational careers when theyrealize that they can no longer compensate adequately;thus they receive late diagnoses that are quite legitimate.

Extended time also was an important topic. The con-sultants stressed that extended time is not the mostappropriate accommodation for all students, althoughapparently the consistent perception on the part of theparents is that extra time makes a difference. The con-sultants recognize that extended time is very much atthe heart of the abuse issue, with parents pushing for adiagnosis of a learning disability simply to improve theirchild’s test scores.

VI. Discussion andImplications

It is clear from the results of the surveys and interviewsthat perceptions about the use of the flag for a nonstan-dard test administration differ based on the role theindividual plays in the admission process. Myths andrumors abound. All argue, however, that honesty andtrust are essential components in fair college admis-sions; otherwise, they say the system will break down.

To reiterate some important comparisons found inthe surveys, all respondents agree that more students arebeing diagnosed with learning disabilities and are takingnonstandard test administrations than in the past. Astrong majority of the admission officers and guidancecounselors want to see the flagging policy maintained,whereas disability service providers recommend the flagbe removed. Despite the differing perspectives about theflag, admission officers and disability service providersboth agree that the flag has no impact on a student’schances for admission, according to the surveys.Although many guidance counselors agreed that the flaghas little or no impact, many others felt it may decreasethe student’s chances for admission. This perceptioncontinues despite admission officers reporting thatflagged scores are given the same weight as unflaggedscores.

Some troublesome interpretations of the flagsurfaced in the survey responses. The fact that one-quarter of the admission officers reported that theyassume an individual has a learning disability when theysee a flag “reflects not only a legally unacceptableassumption concerning the flag itself, but also a legallyunacceptable assumption that the flag indicates the exis-tence of one type of disability” (D. C. Pullin, personalcommunication, November 26, 2000). Similarly, giventhe fact that over half of the admission officers reportedthat they believe that flagged admission test scores areas reliable and accurate as tests administered understandard conditions, there apparently are some funda-mental misunderstandings that need to be addressed bythe College Board and ETS through improved commu-nication.

Data from the interviews further highlight some ofthe differences in beliefs among the groups and perva-sive perceptions. Admission officers defend their needfor as much information as possible, and particularlythe necessity for an applicant with a disability to self-disclose. They strongly maintain that the flag and theself-disclosure process give an advantage to studentswith disabilities, rather than discriminate against them.The guidance counselors interviewed were moreskeptical and were concerned that, despite a college’sbest intentions, there still may be some subtle discrimi-nation, especially in small, private institutions whereresources for making accommodations for studentswith disabilities are limited. Further, as noted by oneexpert, when institutions assert that there are somestudents they cannot accommodate due to the severityof the disabilities, “It may suggest that they are notnecessarily complying with the ‘reasonable accommo-dations’ mandates of the federal law” (D. C. Pullin,personal communication, November 26, 2000).

29

Even institutions that are known for being disability-friendly and that have reputations for havingoutstanding programs and resources are increasinglybeing asked by the OCR to reevaluate their applicationsand admission forms to ensure that there are no inap-propriate preadmission inquiries. Although the lawprohibits such inquiries, the admission officers maintainthat a query to individuals concerning the submission ofdocumentation for disability-related services is onlyintended to help the student. Many students havewillingly supplied such documentation in hopes ofreceiving the services they require. It has been reported,however, that the OCR sees this practice as problemat-ic and potentially discriminatory. A comment made byan admission officer, but echoed by many others wasessentially, “If only the OCR recognized that these prac-tices actually benefit the students with a disability, nothurt them.”

This is precisely the theme that has resonatedthroughout the study. How do measurement and admis-sion professionals help students with disabilities by pro-viding equal access, but ensure that they are not hurtingothers through potentially discriminatory practices?The process should not deter those with legitimate dis-abilities from requesting and receiving accommoda-tions. On the other hand, the review process must besufficiently strict so as to be able to distinguish betweenlegitimate and spurious diagnoses. The identificationand accommodation process also needs to find betterways to reach students who heretofore have not beenserved within the system. What may be a practice ofgood intentions to help such students may also beperceived as being problematic to others. The issues arecomplex and fraught with legal and ethical questions.The discussion of these issues is complicated further bystrong feelings and language, overzealous advocacy, andfactual misperceptions.

The recent audit in California concerning disparitiesin obtaining extended time for the SAT (Leatherman,2000; Weiss, 2000c) and Weiss’s (2000a) contentions ofsuspicious diagnoses by affluent and advantaged stu-dents and parents call into question the validity of theresulting scores and cause skepticism about the entireadmission process. (n.b. The audit indicated that a smallpercentage of students request accommodations and aneven smaller percentage could be considered suspicious,thus questioning the contentions that there is substan-tial manipulation.) If individuals manipulate the systemto their illegitimate advantage, they create a playingfield that further disadvantages students who have legit-imate disabilities. On the other hand, there are manystudents from disadvantaged backgrounds for whom noresources and effective advocacy are available. Students

of color and those from financially disadvantaged,urban and rural areas where schools and guidancecounselors do not have the resources and parents do nothave the knowledge, education, or awareness suffer adifferent fate. They rarely receive test accommodationsand in-school services. And often as mentioned previ-ously, there are cultural issues that deter parents andstudents from seeking appropriate resources, services,and accommodations. How can the educational systemreach these students so that the disadvantaged are notfurther disadvantaged?

In response to media attention given the audit inCalifornia, the president of the College Board(Caperton, 2000) wrote an impassioned letter to theeditor of the Los Angeles Times:

The lesson is not that new, more-rigid barriers(tougher medical documentation and the like) shouldbe raised against disabled students who require extratime to take the SAT. Instead, even while we stopabuse by a relative few, we must also take steps toraise the awareness of students, parents, counselorsand administrators to the accommodations that areavailable to learning-disabled youngsters. Let’s throwopen the door of college admission to all studentswho truly qualify for a higher education.

Our surveys and extensive interviews exposed somepotential areas of concern where misinformation, mis-interpretations of the law, and myths about testing andcollege admission were evident. These are areas whereeducational outreach and training must be directed.From a social utility and ethical perspective, however,the data support the maintenance of the flagging policybecause it benefits students with disabilities. Removingthe flag may not be the right answer or the simple fix tothis highly complex issue. The issues are far more sys-temic. The issue remains, however, as to what actionscan be taken to provide equitable services to thosestudents who have genuine need.

Outreach and education could serve as critical focalpoints to assist students with disabilities, their parents,and the educators who serve them. Educating parentsand educators may be a first step toward a better under-standing of accommodations, services for students withdisabilities, and the admission process. The provision ofresources is an absolute necessity. Outreach to commu-nities for whom disabilities are perceived to be a stigmamay help to dispel some misconceptions about disabili-ties. It is also important for educators and parents tounderstand the role that school-based teams play indetermining and providing appropriate services to stu-dents with disabilities. The myth that the guidancecounselor is the key player in the provision of in-schooland test accommodations must be dispelled. Counselors

30

facilitate the paperwork, but do not determine whoreceives test accommodations. Counselors and teachersidentify students who may need diagnostic testing forfuture services. It is the team of professionals that deter-mines and makes the decisions concerning services, withthe family and student present. Thus, outreach activitiesshould be targeted not only toward the guidancecounselors, but the entire team.

Another issue is the previously mentioned Californialegislative effort (S. 1853, 2000) that is attempting totake the certification process for disabilities and SATaccommodations out of the hands of the schools andguidance counselors altogether (Weiss, 2000b). Thislegislation does not speak to the problem of the studentswithout access to resources due to a lack of counseloror parental awareness, socioeconomic status, or otherpotential sources of disadvantage. Instead, the legisla-tion proposes to take out of the hands of the Californiaschool-based teams and guidance counselors theresponsibility for the certification of disabilities andpass the task on to the College Board. The stated pur-pose of the legislation is to provide a more standardizedand equitable means by which the review and certifica-tion can be accomplished by experts, rather than byschools and guidance counselors who are overburdenedby the current system (S. 1853, 2000).

As with most issues in this field, an attempt toremediate one problem may create a host of others. Theproposed legislation potentially creates numerous otherproblems that will hinder the fair and equitable deliveryof services to the disabled. The legislation also isproblematic in that it negates the team approach todiagnosis that the IDEA and Section 504 have tried toestablish. The “team” approach, which relies on obser-vations, experiences, and testing, is legally more viablethan a purely “paper” approach where reviewers haveno personal contact with the students, teachers, parents,evaluators or the team, as existing laws require.Additionally, the College Board recently has madechanges to its documentation process, requiring parentsto sign a statement in the new application that grantsthe College Board access to student records. Thisprocess would enable the College Board to audit schoolsto ensure that guidelines are being followed (B. Robinson, personal communication, December 8,2000).

Research also must play a role in providing data thataddress the questions of predictive test validity and theimpact of extended time on test performance. There is aneed for further studies to compare the predictive valid-ity of standard and nonstandard administrations(Camara, 2000; Mandinach, et al., in progress;Wightman, 1993; Willingham, et al., 1988). There is

also a need to provide clear scientific evidence about theextent to which extended time affects test performancefor various groups of students (Bridgeman et al., inprogress; Bridgeman and Mandinach, in progress;Camara, Copeland, and Rothschild, 1998; Mandinachet al., in progress; Zuriff, 2000). Such studies are neces-sary to provide evidence to inform the controversyabout the students who seek accommodations simply toreceive extended time and the perception of extendedtime’s beneficial effects on test scores.

A number of admission officers and guidancecounselors, as well as measurement professionals, havesuggested that the test simply be given with extendedtime to all students. Whether such a suggestion is viableoperationally and practically is still an open question.Perhaps more important are the potential and unin-tended outcomes from such a decision that may indeedcreate more inequalities and further disadvantages forunderserved groups. Thus, studies of test timing alsoneed to focus on standard test-taking populations, notjust those students who receive accommodations. Howdifferent subgroups differentially benefit or are disad-vantaged by the provision of extended time will providevaluable objective data. The ensuing interpretations arelikely to be delicate and difficult, however, due to thepossible complex interactions and policy recommenda-tions that should not benefit one group to the potentialdisadvantage of others.

There also is a need to dispel a number of misunder-standings, including the common tendency to equateextended time with unlimited time. Guidance coun-selors often refer to the accommodation as an untimedtest. In reality, extended time—not unlimited time—isall that College Board tests grant. A related mispercep-tion that plays a role in the quest for extended time isthat the purpose of extended time is to enable all test-takers to complete all of the questions on the SAT. Thisis not the case. Extended time is only intended to pro-vide equal access for a student with a disability, relativeto students without disabilities. Thus, if all studentswho receive extended time were to complete the test,then there would be noncomparability in the reversedirection since it is not the case that nondisabledstudents all complete the test. In addition to mispercep-tions regarding test completion, many admissionofficers in this study are misinformed regarding theimpact of extended time on score reliability andaccuracy.

In fact, granting extended time may also call intoquestion the test’s validity, because “the speed ofperformance may be related to the construct the test istrying to measure” (Bridgeman and Schmitt, 1997, p.199). According to the ETS guidelines for assessing

31

whether a test is considered “unspeeded,” virtually alltest-takers should answer at least 75 percent of theitems, and 80 percent of the test-takers should reach thelast question (Swineford, 1974). By this definition, theSAT is an unspeeded test.

As noted above, interview and survey respondentsacross samples raised the issue of opening up extendedtiming to everyone, not just test-takers with disabilities.Psychometric, philosophical, and practical considerationsbecome concerns when discussing the possibility ofextended timing for the total test-taking population. Forexample, comparable validity is an issue, given the statedintention of accommodations to provide equal access totest-takers with disabilities, relative to those without dis-abilities. Another set of issues concerns practical andfinancial questions. Tests taken with accommodationscurrently account for less than 2 percent of total testadministrations and are thus are relatively easy to treat asexceptions. Giving every test-taker extended time wouldresult in very different, and likely more expensive testadministration conditions. Further more, many test cen-ter supervisors report now that many students who havebeen granted extended time do not use it and leave at thesame time as those taking standard administrations (J.Zumoff, personal communication, April, 1999). In addi-tion, an experimental test administration found thatapproximately 30 percent of test-takers with extendedtime accommodations for LD or ADHD use less thantime and a half (Mandinach, et al., in progress). Havingteenagers sit for 4.5 hours to take the test may be unreal-istic. It may be a more realistic plan for test developersand psychometricians to develop ways to make speeded-ness less of a factor in the tests (Bridgeman, et al., inprogress; Bridgeman and Mandinach, in progress).

It must be noted that providing equal access or“leveling the playing field” is a far more difficult goalthan it may first appear. Practical factors are complex tomodel and difficult to implement; and the need toexamine each individual in a case-specific manner,taking into account the type and severity of a disability,and the nature of the specific accommodation is a diffi-cult undertaking, with many elements that are not fullyunderstood. Individual attention is essential for theprovision of appropriate accommodations, but this veryindividualization makes it difficult to conduct validresearch. Thus the aggregation of data across categoriesof disabilities may not be methodologically sound, lead-ing to unintended and spurious conclusions.

The many constituencies who play a role in theadmission process hold their own strong and oftenstarkly differing positions on the flagging policy.Further, within those constituencies there also are dif-ferences depending upon specific circumstances (i.e.,

highly selective versus nonselective institutions, or pub-lic versus independent secondary schools). As notedabove, there also are a number of critical myths thatabound concerning flagging, extended time, and theadmission process more generally. There is no doubtthat flagging is an issue with no easy solution.According to many experienced admission officerssurveyed and interviewed, the removal of the flag wouldfurther disadvantage students with disabilities. Incontrast, other professionals, particularly the disabilityservice providers, argue that maintaining the flag maylead to discrimination. The issue is extremely complex,and it will be difficult to arrive at an equitable, fair,legal, and scientifically sound solution.

ReferencesAmericans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et

seq (1990).American Educational Research Association, American

Psychological Association, & National Council onMeasurement in Education (1985). Standards for educa-tional and psychological testing. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

American Educational Research Association, AmericanPsychological Association, & National Council onMeasurement in Education (1999). Standards for educa-tional and psychological testing. Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.

Breland, H. M., Maxey, J., McLure, G. T., Valiga, M. J.,Boatwright, M. A., Ganley, V. L., & Jenkins, L. M.(1995). Challenges in college admissions: A report of asurvey of undergraduate admissions policies, practices,and procedures. Washington, DC: American Associationof Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Bridgeman, B., Curley, E., & Trapani, C. (in progress). Theimpact of speededness on SAT I scores. Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.

Bridgeman, B., & Mandinach, E. B. (in progress). The impactof extended time on GRE test performance. Princeton,NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Bridgeman, B., & Schmitt, A. (1997). Fairness issues in testdevelopment and administration. In W. Willingham & N.Cole (Eds.), Gender and Fair Assessment (pp. 185–226).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cahalan, C. (2000, April). Geographic clusters of learning dis-abled test takers in the United States. Paper presented atthe meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Cahalan, C., Mandinach, E. B., & Camara, W. J. (in prepara-tion). Predictive validity of SAT I: Reasoning Test for testtakers with learning disabilities and extended timeaccommodations. Princeton, NJ: Educational TestingService and the College Board.

32

Camara, W. (2000, April). Performance outcomes of testtakers with learning disabilities and/or attention deficitdisorders on the SAT and their subsequent use of accom-modations during the freshman year. Paper presented atthe meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Camara, W. J., Copeland, T., & Rothschild, B. (1998). Effectsof extended time on the SAT I: Reasoning Test scoregrowth for students with disabilities (College BoardReport No. 98-7). New York: The College Board.

Caperton, G. (2000, December 15). SAT: Give extra time toqualified students. Los Angeles Times. RetrievedDecember 16, 200l, from http://www.latimes.com/cgi-bin/latreg2?16203783.

Chronicle of Higher Education. (September 1, 2000). 20002001 almanac issue. XLVII (1).

College Board and Educational Testing Service. (1999). SATservices for students with disabilities 1999–2000:Information for students & educators. Princeton, NJ:Author.

College Board. (2001). College Board services for studentswith disabilities (SSD) brochure. New York: Author.

Greenberg, B. (2000, February 21). Learning-disabled flock-ing to colleges: Trend dispels myths, questions labeling ofkids. Retrieved February 22, 2000, fromhttp://www.desertnews.com/dn/view/0,1248,150015387.00.html.

Hanrahan, E. (1997, September). Background on the interimpolicy and goals for the workshop. Presentation at TestScore Flagging Policies: A Workshop Sponsored by theBoard on Testing and Assessment, National ResearchCouncil/National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC.

Heaney, K. J., & Pullin, D. C. (1998). Accommodations andflags: Admissions testing and the rights of individualswith disabilities. Educational Assessment, 5(2), 71–93.

Henderson, C. (1999). 1999 College freshmen with disabili-ties: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC:American Council on Education.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1991, 20 U.S.C.§ 1400 et seq (1991).

Jarrow, J. E. (1997). Higher education and the ADA: Issuesand perspectives: What is a reasonable accommodation?Retrieved on December 6, 2001, from http://www.janejarrow.com/public_library/inservice-material/resnableacc.html.

Kravets, M., & Wax, I. F. (1997). The K & W guide to col-leges for the learning disabled (4th ed.). New York:Random House.

Leatherman, C. (2000, December 4). California study findsracial disparities in granting extra time on SAT. TheChronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 6,2000, from http://chronicle.com/daily/2000/12/2000120405nhtm.

Lee, L. (2000, April 9). To teach, or merely accommodate.New York Times EducationLife, pp. 30–31, 40.

Mandinach, E. B., Bridgeman, B., Cahalan, C., & Trapani, C.(in progress). The impact of extended time on SAT testperformance. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Mehrens, W. A. (1997, September). Flagging test scores:Policy, practice, and research. Paper presented at TestScore Flagging Policies: A Workshop Sponsored by theBoard on Testing and Assessment, National ResearchCouncil/National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC.

Nester, M. A. (1994). Psychometric testing and reasonableaccommodation for persons with disabilities. In S. Bruyère& J. O’Keefe (Eds.), Implications of the Americans withDisabilities Act for psychology (p. 25–36). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Paige, R. (2001, October 4). Testimony of Secretary RodPaige. House Committee on Education and theWorkforce Regarding the Over-Identification of MinorityStudents Under the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act. Washington, DC. Retrieved November14, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/speeches/10-2001/011004.html.

Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations:Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement inEducation, 7(2), 93–120.

Powers, D. E., & Rock, D. A. (1999). Effects of coaching onSAT I: Reasoning Test scores. Journal of EducationalMeasurement, 36, 93–118.

Pullin, D. C. (1997, September). Commentary. Test ScoreFlagging Policies: A Workshop Sponsored by the Boardon Testing and Assessment, National ResearchCouncil/National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC.

Pullin, D. C., & Heaney, K. J. (1997). The use of flagged testscores in college and university admissions: Issues andimplications under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Actand the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal ofCollege and University Law, 23(4), 797–828.

S. Bill 1853, California 1999–00 Regular Session (2000).Section 504 of the Rehabilitiation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §

701 et seq (1973).Swineford, F. (1974). The test analysis manual (ETS SR 74-

06). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Tucker, B. P. (1996). Application of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 to colleges anduniversities: An overview and discussion of special issuesrelating to students. The Journal of College andUniversity Law, 23(1), 1–41.

Weiss, K. R. (2000a, January 9). New test-taking skill: Working the system. Los Angeles Times, pp. A1. Retrieved January 10, 2000, from www. latimes.com/cgi-bin/slwebeli?DBLIST=lt000&D…:%20Working%20the%System.

Weiss, K. R. (2000b, March 1). Bill targets special treatmentfor SAT test-takers. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March2, 2000, from www.latimes.com.

Weiss, K. R. (2000c, December 1). Audit confirms disparitiesin SAT testing. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December2, 2000, from www.latimes.com/news/state/20001201/t000115187.html.

Wightman, L. F. (1993). Test takers with disabilities: A sum-mary of data from special administrations of the LSAT(Research Report 93-03). Newtown, PA: Law SchoolAdmissions Council.

33

Willingham, W., Ragosta, M., Bennett, R. E., Braun, H.,Rock, D. A., & Powers, D. E. (1988). Testing handi-capped people. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Zuriff, G. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students withlearning disabilities: An examination of the maximumpotential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education,13(1), 99–117.

Appendix A4:Survey Instrument forAdmission Officers

34

4 The percentages reported here are relative to all who responded to the survey, not all who answered each question. Thus, the totalpercentage does not always equal 100.

June 3, 1999

Dear Admissions Professional:

The College Board and Educational Testing Service (ETS) are conducting a study ofcollege and university admissions processes for students with disabilities. We are writing to seek your assistance in completing a brief survey to better understand college admissions practices for students with disabilities and how scores resulting from tests administered under non-standard conditions are used. Due to the sensitivity of the requested data, all information provided by individual institutions will be collected without identifying information and will be aggregated across institutions in the study’s final report.

There has been increased concern by the U.S. Department of Education and others aboutpolicies that permit admissions test scores to be designated as non-standard (‘flagged’) when administered with accommodations that render them non-comparable to tests givenunder standardized conditions. This survey is an attempt to collect data that can describe how flagged scores are used in admissions and to determine how these admissions processes may affect students with disabilities.

This survey can be completed in about 10 minutes. It should be completed by the appropriate person in your college admissions office who is familiar with both standard admissions practices, and any additional practices that apply specifically to students with disabilities. Completed surveys should be returned to Ellen Mandinach, ETS, Rosedale Road, 10-R, Princeton, NJ 08541in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope.

In addition, we are also attempting to identify institutions interested in participating in a study to examine the relationship between admissions tests and high school performance(grades, rank) with college performance for students with a disability. We have enclosed an additional sheet (a blue form) that inquires about your interest in participating in this study next year and also inquires if you would like to receive a copy of the results from the current survey. Completion of this sheet is optional. Surveys will be processed separately from the information on the blue form so that your institutional identification will not be revealed.

Thank you for your assistance in this important research effort. If you should have any questions about this study or the survey, you may contact Ellen Mandinach at 609-734-5794. We thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ellen Mandinach Wayne CamaraEducational Testing Service (ETS) The College Board

35

SURVEY OF ADMISSIONS POLICIES AND PRACTICESFOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Please answer each question fully or select the most appropriate option by circling the letterdesignating your choice. If none of the options is appropriate for a particular question, pleasewrite a brief narrative response, explaining your institution’s policy or procedure.

Please Note: Several of the questions inquire about test scores submitted with a ‘flag.’ A‘flagged’ test score is one accompanied by an asterisk (*) indicating that the test was adminis-tered under non-standard administrative conditions.

1. As this survey contains no institutional identifications, pleasecircle all that apply to your institution. N %a. Public 84 47.5b. Private 89 50.3c. fewer than 3,000 undergraduates 52 29.4d. 3,001 to 10,000 undergraduates 68 38.4e. more than 10,001 undergraduates 53 29.9

2. Approximately how many total applicants for undergraduateadmission does your institution receive each year? M SD

❏❏,❏❏❏ 8612.3 8178.4

3. During the last five years, has your institution experienced an increase or decrease in the number of applicants submitting an admission test score with a ‘flag’ designating a non-standard administration? N %a. a large increase (more than 50%) 8 4.5b. a small increase (10-50%) 96 54.2c. no increase or decrease 33 18.6d. a small decrease (10-50%) 5 2.8e. a large decrease (more than 50%) 1 0.6

4. Approximately what percent of students with a flagged admissions test score voluntarily disclose or report theirdisability during the admissions process? M SD

❏❏% 41.1 32.6

5. Which of the following is the primary source of disclosure about students with disabilities? N %a. college application form 44 24.9b. student essay 52 29.4c. letter of recommendation from a teacher or counselor 29 16.4d. during a personal interview 11 6.2e. other (please specify) _________________________ 28 15.8

36

6. Do admissions officers (may include members of the admissions committee) see the ‘flag’ (designation) when anon-standard test score report is submitted? N %a. Yes 126 71.2b. No 39 22.0

7. How do you typically determine when a student has adisability? a. When scores are initially transmitted by ETS via tape, CD,

or paper records 34 19.2b. When applicants’ records are initially reviewed in an

admissions database 17 9.6c. When applicants’ folders are personally reviewed by

admissions staff 130 73.4d. When the student self discloses on the application 106 59.9e. When the student discloses upon admission 52 29.4f. When the student discloses upon arrival on campus 59 33.3g. When the student discloses during matriculation 41 23.2h. Other (please explain) _______________________ 9 5.1

8. When you view a flag on an admission test score report, whatgeneral meaning or interpretation do you give the flaggedscore? (circle all that apply)a. I assume the person has some type of disability requiring a

testing accommodation 129 72.9b. I assume the person has a learning disability requiring a

testing accommodation 41 23.2c. I assume the admission test score is a less reliable or less

accurate indicator of the student’s potential for success atthis college or university. 7 4.0

d. I assume the ‘flagged’ admission test score is as reliableand accurate as tests administered under standard-timedconditions. 102 57.6

9. Do you attend more to other factors (e.g., grades, coursestaken, references) when students submit admissions test scoreswith a flag?a. Yes 77 43.5b. No 91 51.4

10. Do you give more or less weight to admissions test scoreswhen a flag accompanies them? a. Yes, give less weight to flagged test scores 15 8.5b. Yes, give more weight to flagged test scores 2 1.1c. No, give about the same weight to flagged and unflagged test scores 153 86.4

37

11. Many students with disabilities choose to take both a standard-timed admissions test and a test administered under non-standard conditions. How do you evaluate these two test scoresin such cases? N %a. Place greatest weight on the highest score. 119 67.2b. Place greatest weight on the flagged score 8 4.5c. Place greatest weight on the score taken under standard-

timed conditions 3 1.7d. Consider both scores about equally 31 17.5e. Other (please explain) __________________________ 11 6.2

12. Based on your experience, does the presence of a flag in anadmission test score in any way impact the student’s chancesfor admission to your institution? a. May increase their chances of admission 11 6.2b. May decrease their chances of admission 4 2.3c. Has no impact on their chances of admission 147 83.1d. Other (please explain)______________________________ 7 4.0

13. Does your institution have different procedures whenevaluating applicants who self disclose a disability? (circle allthat apply) a. We involve a staff member with expertise in disabilities in

the admission review process. 62 35.0b. We inform a staff member with expertise in disabilities

following admission to ensure appropriate services aremade available. 73 41.2

c. We request additional information concerning the nature ofthe disability, after the student has been admitted, to ensureappropriate services are made available. 58 32.8

d. School should not treat people with disabilities anydifferently, and should not employ different procedures forreviewing and processing applications. 57 32.2

e. We use additional procedures in reviewing or processingapplications for students self-disclosing their disabilities(explain) _____________________________________ 26 14.7

14. Does your institution have data on the accuracy of flaggedscores in predicting college grades and GPA for your enrolledstudents with disabilities?a. Yes 11 6.2b. No 158 89.3

15. Do you think the ‘flag’ designation should be kept or removedfor tests administered under non-standard conditions by theCollege Board? a. The flag should be kept 130 73.4b. The flag should be removed 34 19.2

38

The next few questions are open-ended, but we very much appreciate your comments and perspectives on these issues:

16. Please explain your response to item 15 (use the reverse side if you need additional space)

17. Please provide any additional information on your institution’s policies or procedures used in the reviewingapplications submitted by students who submit a test with a flag (use the reverse side if you need additionalspace).

18. Do you have any additional thoughts or comments (you may use the reverse side)

19. Job Title of person completing this survey (optional) _____________________

39

The College Board and ETS will be conducting a validity study of students with disabilitieswho are attending four-year colleges. This study will be useful in providing data on the rela-tionship of admission test scores and high school performance (grades, rank) and subsequentcollege performance for students with disabilities. We are hoping your institution may be inter-ested in participating in this important study. Data to be collected include college grades andGPA for students admitted in the past year (or past few years) who completed the SAT withaccommodations. Of course, confidentiality will be assured. We will provide more informationto institutions indicating a potential interest in this study. Please complete the informationbelow and return it along with the survey. Surveys will be processed separately from this blueform so that institutional identification of survey responses can not be revealed.

1. Would your institution be interested in participating in such a study? a. Yesb. Possiblyc. No (Skip to Question 3)

2. If you said yes or possibly, who should we contact to discuss the need for such data on college students withdisabilities?

Name

Title/Office

Tel

3. If you would like to receive a copy of our study when completed please provide your name and addressbelow:

Name

Address

City/State/Zip

Email address

40

Appendix B5:Survey Instrument forGuidance Counselors

41


August 18, 1999

Dear Guidance Counselor:

The College Board and Educational Testing Service (ETS) are conducting a study of college and university admissions processes for students with disabilities. We are writing to seek your assistance in completing a brief survey to better understand high school guidance practices for advising students with disabilities who are applying to postsecondary institutions. Due to the sensitivity of the requested data, all information provided by individual institutions will be collected without identifying information and will be aggregated across institutions in the study’s final report.

There has been increased concern by the U.S. Department of Education and others about policies that permit admissions test scores to be designated as non-standard (‘flagged’) when administered with accommodations that render them non-comparable to tests givenunder standardized conditions. This survey is an attempt to collect data that can describe how flagged scores are used in admissions counseling and to determine how these processes may affect students with disabilities.

This survey can be completed in about 10 minutes. It should be completed by the appropriate person in your guidance office who is familiar with both standard admissionspractices, and any additional practices that apply specifically to students with disabilities.Completed surveys should be returned to Ellen Mandinach, ETS, Rosedale Road, 10-R,Princeton, NJ 08541 in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Thank you for your assistance in this important research effort. If you should have any questions about this study or the survey, you may contact Ellen Mandinach at 609-734-5794. We thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ellen MandinachEducational Testing Service (ETS)

42

SURVEY OF ADMISSIONS AND GUIDANCE PRACTICESFOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES


Please Note: Several of the questions inquire about test scores submitted with a ‘flag.’ A‘flagged’ test score is one accompanied by an asterisk (*) on the score report indicating that thetest was administered under certain non-standard administrative conditions (e.g., extendedtime).

1. As this survey contains no institutional identifications, please circle all that apply to your school. N %a. Public 195 92.9b. Private 15 7.1c. fewer than 1,000 students 65 31.0d. 1,001 to 2,000 students 88 41.9e. more than 2,001 students 22 10.5

2. Is your school? a. Urban 70 33.3b. Suburban 89 42.4c. Rural 32 15.2d. Other (please specify) ___________________ 16 7.6

3. Please specify in what state your school is located.__________________________________

4. Approximately what is the size of your senior class? M SD

❏,❏❏❏ 321.2 206.1

5. Approximately what percent of your junior class takes the SAT?

❏❏% 44.5 33.5

6. Approximately what percent of your senior class takes theSAT?

❏❏% 46.4 33.57. Approximately what percent of students have some sort of

disability for which they have an IEP or 504 Plan?

❏❏% 10.6 7.1

43

8. Has this number increased, decreased, or stayed the same over N %the past five years? a. A large increase (more than 50%) 18 8.6b. A small increase (10-50%) 128 61.0c. No increase or decrease 48 22.9d. A small decrease (10-50%) 6 2.9e. A large decrease (more than 50%) 0 0.0

9. Approximately what percent of your students request M SDaccommodations on the SAT?

❏❏% 3.1 4.0

10. Has this number increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past five years? N %a. A large increase (more than 50%) 12 5.7b. A small increase (10-50%) 78 37.1c. No increase or decrease 110 52.4d. A small decrease (10-50%) 3 1.4e. A large decrease (more than 50%) 0 0.0

11. Are you aware of what options students have for accommodations on standardized tests? a. Yes 205 97.6b. No 4 1.9

12. Are you familiar with the procedures to request an accommodation on the SAT? a. Yes 196 93.3b. No 12 5.7

13. Are you familiar with the flag used to designate a non-standard administration?a. Yes 166 79.0b. No 41 19.5

14. Are students aware that tests completed with most accommodations will be accompanied by a flag? a. Yes 147 70.0b. No 52 24.8

15. What types of resources do you rely on to assist you in counseling students with disabilities? (circle all that apply)a. A school psychologist 149 71.0b. A learning disabilities specialist 130 61.9c. A special education teacher 170 81.0d. Special training 53 25.2e. Learning disabilities guides or software 51 24.3f. Attending conferences or workshops 129 61.4g. Newsletters or other relevant publications 85 40.5h. Other (please specify) ________________________ 32 15.2

44

16. In your opinion, does the presence of a flag in an admission test score in any way impact the student’s chances for admission to college? N %a. May increase their chances of admission 32 15.2b. May decrease their chances of admission 63 30.0c. Has no impact on their chances of admission 70 33.3d. Other (please explain)__________________________ 38 18.1

17. Do you think the ‘flag’ designation should be kept or removed for tests administered under non-standard conditions by the College Board? a. The flag should be kept 122 58.1b. The flag should be removed 34 16.2c. Don’t know 34 16.2

The next few questions are open-ended, but we very much appreciate your comments and perspectives on these issues:

18. Please explain your response to item 17.

19. If admissions tests taken with accommodations were no longer flagged, how might that change your guidance and admissions processes and your reliance on admissions tests?

20. Please provide any additional information on your school’s policies or procedures used in advising students with disabilities in the applications and admissions process (use the reverse side if you need additional space).

21. What could Educational Testing Service and the College Board do to better serve you and your school’s need in the admissions advising process for students with disabilities?

22. Do you have any additional thoughts or comments (you may use the reverse side).

23. Number of years experience as a guidance counselor? M SD18.0 8.3

24. Job Title of person completing this survey (optional). _____________________

45

If you would like to receive a copy of our study when completed please provide yourname and address below:

Name

Address

City/State/Zip

Email address

46

Appendix C6:Survey Instrument forDisability Service Providers

47


December 1, 1999

Dear Disability Service Provider:

The College Board and Educational Testing Service (ETS) are conducting a study of college and university admissions and counseling processes for students with disabilities. We are writing to seek your assistance in completing a brief survey about advising students with disabilities who are enrolled in postsecondary institutions as well as your role, if any, in the admissions process. Understanding your role is critical. Due to the sensitivity of the requested data, all information provided by individual institutions will be collected without identifying information and will be aggregated across institutions in the study’s final report.

There has been increased concern by the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department ofEducation Office about the interim policy that permits admissions test scores to be designated as non-standard (‘flagged’) when administered with accommodations that render them non-comparable to tests given under standardized conditions. The enclosed survey is an attempt to collect data that can describe how flagged scores are used and interpreted, and to determine how these processes may affect students with disabilities.

This survey can be completed in about 10 minutes. It should be completed by the appropriate person in your office who is familiar with counseling practices for students with disabilities. Completed surveys should be returned to Ellen Mandinach, ETS, Rosedale Road, 10-R, Princeton, NJ 08541 in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Thank you for your assistance in this important research effort. If you should have any questions about this study or the survey, you may contact Ellen Mandinach at (609) 734-5794. We thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ellen MandinachSenior Research ScientistEducational Testing Service (ETS)

48

SURVEY OF ADMISSIONS AND COUNSELING PRACTICESFOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES


Please Note: Several of the questions inquire about test scores submitted with a ‘flag.’ A‘flagged’ test score is one accompanied by an asterisk (*) indicating that the test wasadministered under non-standard administrative conditions.

1. As this survey contains no institutional identifications, pleasecircle all that apply to your institution. N %a. Public 76 49.7b. Private 68 44.4c. fewer than 3,000 undergraduates 36 23.5d. 3,001 to 10,000 undergraduates 55 35.9e. more than 10,001 undergraduates 53 34.6

2. Approximately how large is your institution’s incomingfreshman class? M SD

2295 2448

❏❏,❏❏❏3. Approximately how many students seek assistance in the

disability resource center each year? What percent of thestudent body does this figure represent? M SD

311 301

M SD______________________ 5.2 9.5

❏❏%4. Do you or your office have any input into admissions decisions

for students with disabilities? N %a. Yes 68 47.7b. No 73 44.4

5. What, if any, relationship do you have with the admissions office?

6. Where administratively is your office located within the university? N %a. Student Affairs 93 60.8b. Academic Affairs 36 23.5c. Other (please specify) _________________________ 9 5.9

49

7. Do you have a learning disabilities specialist on staff? N %a. Yes 50 32.7b. No 94 61.4

8. How many full-time and part-time staff does your office have? M SDFull-time __________ 3.6 4.1Part-time __________ 5.1 13.4

9. During the last five years, has your institution experienced anincrease or decrease in the number of applicants submitting anadmission test score with a ‘flag’ designating a non-standardadministration and seeking assistance from your office? N %a. a large increase (more than 50%) 14 9.2b. a small increase (10-50%) 58 37.9c. no increase or decrease 17 11.1d. a small decrease (10-50%) 2 1.3e. a large decrease (more than 50%) 0 0.0

10. Approximately what percent of the students you serve had a 504 Plan or and IEP in high school? M SD

% 1.92 0.31

11. To your knowledge, approximately how many students whohad 504 Plans, IEP’s, or accommodations in high schoolchoose not to seek assistance from the disability resourcecenter? 1.88 1.42_____________________

12. Approximately how many students who did not have 504Plans, IEP’s, or accommodations in high school have soughtassistance from the disability resource center? _____________________ 2.04 0.50

13. Are you aware of what types of testing accommodations aregenerally available on standardized tests? N %a. Yes 150 98.0b. No 2 1.3

14. Are you familiar with the procedures to request anaccommodation on standardized tests? a. Yes 147 96.1b. No 5 3.3

15. Are you familiar with the flag used to designate a non-standard administration and under what conditions is a test score flagged?a. Yes 129 84.3b. No 20 13.1

16. Do you think students are aware that tests completed with certain accommodations will be accompanied by a flag? a. Yes 77 50.3b. No 66 43.1

50

17. Which of the following is the primary source of disclosureabout students with disabilities? N %a. college application form 11 7.2b. student essay 14 9.2c. letter of recommendation from a teacher or counselor 4 2.6d. during a personal interview 13 8.5e. first appearance at the disability resource center 76 49.7f. other (please specify) _________________________ 21 13.7

18. Based on your experience, does the presence of a flag in anadmission test score in any way impact the student’s chancesfor admission to your institution? a. May increase their chances of admission 6 3.9b. May decrease their chances of admission 10 6.5c. Has no impact on their chances of admission 116 75.8d. Other (please explain)_________________________ 12 7.8

19. How does your institution evaluate applicants who self disclosea disability? (circle all that apply) a. We involve a staff member with expertise in disabilities in

the admission review process. 54 35.3b. We inform a staff member with expertise in disabilities

following admission to ensure appropriate services aremade available. 67 43.8

c. We request additional information concerning the nature ofthe disability, after the student has been admitted, to ensureappropriate services are made available. 68 44.4

d. We use additional procedures in reviewing or processingapplications for students self-disclosing their disabilities(explain) _______________________________ 31 20.3

20. Do you think students who had a ‘flagged’ score are morelikely to use Disability Services? a. Yes 98 64.1b. No 36 23.5

21. Do you think students who had IEP or 504 Plans are morelikely to use Disability Services than those disabled studentswho did not have a plan? a. Yes 113 73.9b. No 24 15.7

22. Do you think the “flag’ designation should be kept or removedfor test administered under non-standard conditions? a. Yesb. No

51

Follow-up responses to question 22 (based upon response to question 23) N %a. The flag should be kept 45 29.4b. The flag should be removed 82 53.6

23. Please explain your response to item 22 (use the reverse side if you need additional space)

24. Please provide any additional information on your institution’s policies or procedures used in the reviewing applications submitted by students who submit a test with a flag (use the reverse side if you need additional space).

25. What could Educational Testing Service and the College Board do to better serve you and your school’s needs with respect to students with disabilities?

26. Number of years experience in your position? _________________________

27. Job Title of person completing this survey (optional) _________________________

If you would like to receive a copy of our study when completed please provide your name and address below:

Name

Address

City/State/Zip

Email address

52

Appendix D:Interview Protocol forAdmission Officers

53

Flagging Questions

1. Approximately how many applications for admission do you receive each year?

2. Of these, approximately how many contain one or more admissions tests with a flagged score?

3. Is the number of flagged scores increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant?

4. Among all the students who submit a “flagged” test score, about what percent has the flag because of a dis-abling condition which may require a special accommodation (100%, 90%, 60%, other)?

5. Does your admissions database retain the “flag” notation in the applicant’s records, or are the flags not partof a student record?

6. What, if any, procedures do you use in reviewing applicants’ records who submit a flagged admissions testscore? Are folders with a flagged admissions score reviewed by a specific panel or additional reviewers?

7. Do you give equal weight to admissions test scores if they are flagged or not flagged? That is do you considera flagged admissions test score to be about as good (reliable) an indicator of a student’s future academic per-formance at your college as you do for students submitting standard admissions scores?

8. Do you look more closely at other factors (grades, courses taken, references, student accomplishments) whenstudents submit admissions test scores with a flag? Are there any formal guidelines or are these decisionsmade on a case-by-case basis?

9. Over one-third of students with disabilities complete both a standard-timed admissions test and a test withaccommodations, which has a flagged score. How do you consider the two test scores in these cases? Doyou average them, give added weight to the flagged or unflagged score, the most recent score, or count onlythe highest score regardless of whether the test was standardized or non-standardized administration?

10. Does your institution have any formal or informal limitations as to the number of applicants you may admitwho submit flagged scores to your institution? To a given program of study?

11. Do you have someone on you admissions review panel with expertise in disabilities? If yes, is this positioninvolved in reviewing all folders or just those of students with flagged scores and/or self-identified disabilities?What responsibilities does this person have and how are they used in the review process?

12. Generally, when you see a flag and score on an admissions test, what general meaning or interpretation doyou give the flagged score (e.g., Do you assume the person has some disability which required an accommo-dation? Do you assume the person simply took the test under some non-standard condition, but may nothave a disability?). Please explain.

13. Is the flag important and if so in what ways?

14. If admissions tests taken with accommodations no longer were flagged how might that change your admis-sions processes and your reliance on admissions tests?

15. Based on your experience, does the presence of a flag on an admissions test score, in any way, adverselyimpact the student’s chances for admissions? If so, how? Please explain.

16. Do you think there is abuse of the use of accommodations? What are the perceived benefits or detriments?

17. What could ETS and the College Board do to better serve you and your institution’s needs in the admissionsreview process of test takers with disabilities?

54

Appendix E:Interview Protocol forGuidance Counselors

55

Flagging Questions

1. Are you aware of post-secondary options for students with disabilities?

2. Are the students you serve aware of these options?

3. Where do students go for information about disabilities and the admissions process? Is there some sort ofgrapevine?

4. What sorts of resources are there for those with learning disabilities or other handicaps?

5. Are you knowledgeable about the existing guides for LD? Do you use them?

6. What kind of training, if any, do you and your colleagues have in dealing with students with disabilities?

7. Does your department have an LD contact person? Is there a special education staff to whom you can turnfor advice?

8. Do you attend conferences that deal with the issues concerning students with disabilities? Read newsletters?

9. Do you have school psychologists to whom you can refer students with disabilities?

10. How many students have IEP’s or 504 plans? Of those, how many have LD? ADHD?

11. Is college a viable option for these students?

12. Are these students more likely to apply to 2-year or 4-year institutions?

13. How do you steer these students? To what types of schools?

14. Do you use any matching tools such as software, checklists?

15. What, if any, procedures do you use in advising disabled students in the applications process?

16. Are you aware of the flagging process and what it means?

17. Are the students aware of the flags?

18. Do you look more closely at other factors (grades, courses taken, references, student accomplishments) whencounseling students who will submit admissions test scores with a flag? Are there any formal guidelines orare these decisions made on a case-by-case basis?

19. Are you aware of what options students have for special accommodations on standardized tests?Accommodations in the classroom?

20. Is the flag important and if so in what ways?

21. If admissions tests taken with accommodations no longer were flagged how might that change your guidanceand admissions processes and your reliance on admissions tests?

22. Based on your experience, does the presence of a flag on an admissions test score, in any way, adverselyimpact the student’s chances for admissions? If so, how? Please explain.

56

23. Do you think there is abuse of the use of accommodations? What are the perceived benefits or detriments?

24. What could ETS and the College Board do to better serve you and your institution’s needs in the admissionsadvising and review process of test takers with disabilities?

57

993907

www.collegeboard.com

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyenque
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

The Impact of Flagging on the Admission Process: Policies, Practices, and ... · the Admission...

Documents