Rule Change on Accommodated Testing? Forum

[LawTweet]

"Dear XXXXXXX:

Until recently, certain administrations of the test used a four-section format, rather than a five section format. This was not an accommodation granted to test takers. It was a practice related to the annotation of scores earned with additional test time. When LSAC stopped annotating such test scores, we changed our practice and now require all test takers to take the five-section format of the test."

This is bullshit. In June, accommodated test takers had four sections when annotation ceased. This feels explicitly untrue.

[LawTweet]

I think it's important to point out that when LSAC added comparative reading (a much less significant change than ADDING A SECTION), LSAC made a public announcement with press releases eight months in advance.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/ ... t-in-june/

[rpupkin]

I think it's important to point out that when LSAC added comparative reading (a much less significant change than ADDING A SECTION), LSAC made a public announcement with press releases eight months in advance.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/ ... t-in-june/

I don't agree that the 2007 change was less significant. Back then, LSAC made a substantive change to the exam--they added a new type of question.

[LawTweet]

That's fine. It really doesn't matter. The point is that when substantial changes were made to the test in the past, their notification looked entirely different than what notification looks like for this change that *happens* to only affect folks with disabilities.

[rpupkin]

That's fine. It really doesn't matter. The point is that when substantial changes were made to the test in the past, their notification looked entirely different than what notification looks like for this change that *happens* to only affect folks with disabilities.

And the counterpoint is that this change is not "substantial." They're not testing new material. Anyone preparing under the old system should be just as prepared under the new system.

[bmathers]

"Dear XXXXXXX:

Until recently, certain administrations of the test used a four-section format, rather than a five section format. This was not an accommodation granted to test takers. It was a practice related to the annotation of scores earned with additional test time. When LSAC stopped annotating such test scores, we changed our practice and now require all test takers to take the five-section format of the test."

This is bullshit. In June, accommodated test takers had four sections when annotation ceased. This feels explicitly untrue.

February and June, not just June

[LawTweet]

^Right. My point being that this is a change that happened long after the changes related to the consent decree.

[LawTweet]

That's fine. It really doesn't matter. The point is that when substantial changes were made to the test in the past, their notification looked entirely different than what notification looks like for this change that *happens* to only affect folks with disabilities.

And the counterpoint is that this change is not "substantial." They're not testing new material. Anyone preparing under the old system should be just as prepared under the new system.

Oh yeah, adding an extra hour is totally not "substantial." I'm sure if this change was made to non disabled folks without notification that there would be...oh wait this wouldn't happen if it affected non disabled folks.

[bmathers]

That's fine. It really doesn't matter. The point is that when substantial changes were made to the test in the past, their notification looked entirely different than what notification looks like for this change that *happens* to only affect folks with disabilities.

#AccomTestsMatter Let's start a movement!

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's not really surprising that they have to make some changes along the way to how they adjust to the consent decree.

Also, I thought the point of accommodations was to address someone's needs for the test. If someone needs (say) extra time for a 4-hour test, presumably their accommodations get adjusted when it goes to a 5-hour test.

[LawTweet]

It's not really surprising that they have to make some changes along the way to how they adjust to the consent decree.

Also, I thought the point of accommodations was to address someone's needs for the test. If someone needs (say) extra time for a 4-hour test, presumably their accommodations get adjusted when it goes to a 5-hour test.

It's certainly not surprising. Lack of notification is inappropriate though. And yes, the accommodation gets adjusted. There's still extended time for the new section. Breaks are not adjusted. Nor are people given the opportunity to apply for new accommodations like additional breaks because they weren't given enough notice to do so.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Have you asked them if they can reconsider taking new requests (like for breaks) in light of when the announcement was made?

[LawTweet]

Yes. Naturally they haven't responded with that. But I do think it would substantially mitigate the damage if they make that change.

[JDanger007]

I am confused because when I took the exam in 2013 with accommodations, I HAD 5 sections. IS the rule different for different disabilities?...


HAHA whoops, I did have 5 because I was denied like many people during the class action lawsuit period.

[LawTweet]

Might depend on the accommodation but typically any extended time accommodation took a four-section test plus the writing sample.

[tofuspeedstar]

yeah just got blindsided with the e-mail. Not happy about it, but, whatever. Just have to power through this last month of prep.

[LawTweet]

Have you asked them if they can reconsider taking new requests (like for breaks) in light of when the announcement was made?

Surprise, they won't extend the deadline to request accommodations.

"Unfortunately, as indicated in Frequently Asked Questions About the Process for Requesting Accommodation(s) on the LSAT available here, http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/accommodated-testing/faqs, there are no exceptions to the deadlines."