Hello and welcome to Day in Washington, your disability policy podcast. I’m your host Day Al-Mohamed working to make sure you stay informed.  Today, I want to take a few minutes to talk about the recent college admissions scandal, reflect a bit on what happened, and what it means for students with disabilities. 

It is impossible to look at the news in the last few weeks and not hear about the college admissions cheating scandal. Operation Varsity Blues was an FBI operation that resulted in 50 people being charged with bribery and mail fraud. They were part of a complex cheating scheme to get unqualified children of rich parents into elite colleges.

One of the key elements that impacts the disability community is how, affluent parents paid to have their children diagnosed with learning disabilities so they could get special accommodations on the SAT and ACT college entrance exams. Those accommodations can include extra time on tests or allowing them to take their exam in a room alone with just a proctor to minimize distractions.

This is not a new discovery. In 2010, a California audit of College Board test takers “showed a disproportionate number of white, affluent students receiving accommodations, igniting suspicions of exaggerated or nonexistent disabilities”. In 2006, ABC reported the practice of “diagnosis shopping?—?a cottage industry of doctors and medical professionals, all willing to give students the documentation they need to get the extra test time they want.”

Why the sudden increase and interest in using a learning disability to get a “leg up”? It actually goes back to 2003 where the College Board had been sued. Previously they "flagged" the scores of students who took the SAT with extra time. I remember being pissed that my tests were “flagged”. I didn’t want a college application committee to know about and/or judge me by my disability until I chose to disclose it. The flagging intimated that my scores weren’t as “valid” as a non-disabled student’s score. So I was glad to see the practice done away with. After the "flag" was dropped, colleges would have no way of knowing that the test was taken under nonstandard conditions. Of course this now had the unintended side effect of not just reducing the stigma for disabled students but created an INCENTIVE for folks to game the system. You no longer would carry the “scarlet letter D” for disability on your scores.

Let me quote from one of the affidavits that were filed in the case: "What happened is, all the wealthy families that figured out that if I get my kid tested and they get extended time, they can do better on the test. So most of these kids don't even have issues, but they're getting time."

Accommodations, instead of being viewed as a “levelling of the playing field”, were viewed as something advantageous and these people were willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, to ensure their children could get them.

And yet, for many families with youth with disabilities, it is a nightmare of providing testing results and proof of disability, and the constantly changing goalposts of what paperwork is needed for desperately needed accommodations. Diagnostic testing is not cheap, running anywhere from about $1,000 to $5,000. And the bureaucracy to getting accommodations approved can take months. Where students without disabilities might be able to take tests multiple times to improve their scores, a student with a disability, because of the paperwork, ongoing testing, proof of disability, checks and rechecks, if they’re lucky, and their timing is right, they just might get their accommodations approved in time to take the test ONCE.

And beyond the cost of testing to prove one’s disability and the timing and planning needed to ensure it is in place, there has always been skepticism in academic fields about accommodations.