1AC

Framework
I value morality.
The standard is minimizing material violence.
Personal identity reductionism is true – if the hemispheres of my brain were
transplanted into 2 different people, neither would be me.
Parfit 84. Derek Parfit 1984, “Reasons and Persons”, Oxford Paperbacks
It is in fact true that one
hemisphere is enough. There are many people who have survived, when a
stroke or injury puts out of action one of their hemispheres. With his remaining hemisphere, such a person
may need to re-learn certain things, such as adult speech, or how to control both hands. But this is possible. In my example I am
assuming that, as may be true of certain actual people, both of my hemispheres have the full range of abilities. I could thus survive
with either hemisphere, without any need for re-learning.¶ I shall now combine these last two claims. I
would survive if my
brain was successfully transplanted into my twin's body. And I could survive with only half my
brain, the other half having been destroyed. Given these two facts, it seems clear that I would survive if half my
brain was successfully transplanted into my twin's body, and the other half was destroyed.¶ What if the other half was not
destroyed? This is the case that Wiggins described: that in which a person, like an amoeba, divides.40 To simplify the case, I assume
that I am one of three identical triplets. Consider¶ My Division. My
body is fatally injured, as are the brains of my
two brothers. My brain is divided, and each half is successfully transplanted into the body of one
of my brothers. Each of the resulting people believes that he is me, seems to remember living my life, has my character, and is
in every other way psychologically continuous with me. And he has a body that is very like mine.¶ This case is likely to remain
impossible. Though it is claimed that, in certain people, the two hemispheres may have the same full range of abilities, this claim
might be false. I am here assuming that this claim is true when applied to me. I am also assuming that it would be possible to
connect a transplanted half-brain with the nerves in its new body. And I am assuming that we could divide, not just the upper
hemispheres, but also the lower brain. My first two assumptions may be able to be made true if there is enough progress in
neurophysiology. But it seems likely that it would never be possible to divide the lower brain, in a way that did not impair its
functioning.¶ Does it matter if, for this reason, this imagined case of complete division will always remain impossible? Given the aims
of my discussion, this does not matter. This impossibility is merely technical. The one feature of the case that might be held to be
deeply impossible—the division of a person's consciousness into two separate streams—is the feature that has actually happened. It
would have been important if this had been impossible, since this might have supported some claim about what we really are. It
might have supported the claim that we are indivisible Cartesian Egos. It therefore matters that the division of a person's
consciousness is in fact possible. There seems to be no similar connection between a particular view about what we really are and
the impossibility of dividing and successfully transplanting the two halves of the lower brain. This
impossibility thus
provides no ground for refusing to consider the imagined case in which we suppose that this can
be done. And considering this case may help us to decide both what we believe ourselves to be, and what in fact we are. As
Einstein's example showed, it can be useful to consider impossible thought-experiments.¶ It may help to state, in advance, what I
believe this case to show. It provides a further argument against the view that we are separately existing entities. But the main
conclusion to be hdrawn is that personal identity is not what matters.¶ It is natural to believe that our identity is what
matters. Reconsider the Branch-Line Case, where I have talked to my Replica on Mars, and am about to die. Suppose we believe that
I and my Replica are different people. It is then natural to assume that my prospect is almost as bad as ordinary death. In a few days,
there will be no one living who will be me. It is natural to assume that this is what matters. In discussing My Division, I shall start by
making this assumption.¶ In this case, each half of my brain will be successfully transplanted into the very similar body of one of my
two brothers. Both of the resulting people will be fully psychologically continuous with me, as I am now. What happens to me?¶
There are only four possibilities: (1) I do not survive; (2) I survive as one of the two people; (3) I survive as the other; (4) I survive as
both.¶ The objection to (1) is this. I would survive if my brain was successfully transplanted. And people have in fact survived with
half their brains destroyed. Given these facts, it seems clear that I would survive if half my brain was successfully transplanted, and
the other half was destroyed. So how could I fail to survive if the other half was also successfully transplanted? How could a double
success be a failure?¶ Consider the next two possibilities. Perhaps one success is the maximum score. Perhaps I shall be one of the
two resulting people. The objection here is that, in this case, each half of my brain is exactly similar, and so, to start with, is each
resulting person. Given these facts, how can I survive as only one of the two people? What can make me one of them rather than
the other?¶ These three possibilities cannot be dismissed as incoherent. We can understand them. But, while we assume that
identity is what matters, (1) is not plausible. My Division would not be as bad as death. Nor are (2) and (3) plausible. There remains
the fourth possibility: that I survive as both of the resulting people.¶ This possibility might be described in several ways. I might first
claim: ‘What we have called “the two resulting people” are not two people. They are one person. I do survive this operation. Its
effect is to give me two bodies, and a divided mind.’¶ This claim cannot be dismissed outright. As I argued, we ought to admit as
possible that a person could have a divided mind. If this is possible, each half of my divided mind might control its own body. But
though this description of the case cannot be rejected as inconceivable, it involves a great distortion in our concept of a person. In
my imagined Physics Exam I claimed that this case involved only one person. There were two features of the case that made this
plausible. The divided mind was soon reunited, and there was only one body. If
a mind was permanently divided, and
its halves developed in different ways, it would become less plausible to claim that the case
involves only one person. (Remember the actual patient who complained that, when he embraced his wife, his left hand
pushed her away.)¶ The case of complete division, where there are also two bodies, seems to be a long way over the borderline.
After I have had this operation, the two ‘products’ each have all of the features of a person. They
could live at opposite
ends of the Earth. Suppose that they have poor memories, and that their appearance changes in different ways. After many
years, they might meet again, and fail even to recognise each other. We might have to claim of such a pair,
innocently playing tennis: ‘What you see out there is a single person, playing tennis with himself. In each half of his mind he
mistakenly believes that he is playing tennis with someone else.’ If we are not yet Reductionists, we believe that there is one true
answer to the questionwhether these two tennis-players are a single person. Given what we mean by ‘person’, the answer must be
No. It
cannot be true that what I believe to be a stranger, standing there behind the net, is in fact
another part of myself.

Reductionism justifies util.

Gruzalski 86. Bart Gruzalski 86 [UChicago], “Parfit's Impact on Utilitarianism”, Ethics, Vol. 96, No. 4, July 1986.
Parfit concludes his discussion of distributive moral principles by claiming that, “when we cease to believe that
persons are separately existing entities, the Utilitarian view becomes more plausible. Is the gain in
plausibility great, or small? My argument leaves this question open” (p. 342). In contrast, I have argued that the Reductionist
View strongly supports the utilitarian account of desert and distributive justice. The argument has two aspects. One
is the recognition of the utilitarian emphasis on secondary rules, including principles of distributive justice and policies of desert.
These rules, principles, and policies are treated within the utilitarian account as if they have self-standing, whereas in fact they are
justified on the principle of utility which alone has self-standing within the utilitarian program. The other aspect of the argument
involves the recognition that the utilitarian’s dual treatment of secondary principles dovetails with the dual account of the nature of
persons on the Reductionist View: persons exist, yet their existence just involves bodies and interrelated mental and physical events,
and a complete description of our lives need not claim that persons exist. Furthermore, a
body, brain, and interrelated
series of mental and physical events are more fundamental and basic than the person whose
existence just consists in them, much as the citizens and the territory are more fundamental and basic than the nation
whose existence just consists in them. This corresponds precisely with the utilitarian account, for
utilitarianism treats persons as fundamental and separate existents, while grounding this
treatment on the impersonal elements of pain, suffering, happiness, and contentment. Because
util- itarianism accurately reflects in this way the true nature of persons, it is much more
plausible than has been previously recognized. In addition, since many of the current competitors to
utilitarianism presuppose that the person is separate from the body, brain, and interrelated
mental and physical events, it follows that these views err by being too personal and are
therefore implausible. It follows that when we cease to believe that persons are separately existing
entities, utilitarianism becomes significantly more plausible than any of its person-centered
theoretical competitors.

Prefer additionally:
1. States must use util.
Goodin 90. Robert Goodin 90, [professor of philosophy at the Australian National University college of arts and social
sciences], “The Utilitarian Response,” pgs 141-142 //RS
My larger argument turns on the proposition that there
is something special about the situation of public
officials that makes utilitarianism more probable for them than private individuals. Before proceeding
with the large argument, I must therefore say what it is that makes it so special about public officials and their situations that make
it both more necessary and more desirable for them to adopt a more credible form of utilitarianism. Consider, first, the argument
from necessity. Public officials are obliged to make their choices under uncertainty, and uncertainty
of a very special sort at that. All choices – public and private alike – are made under some degree of uncertainty, of
course. But in the nature of things, private individuals will usually have more complete information on the
peculiarities of their own circumstances and on the ramifications that alternative possible
choices might have for them. Public officials, in contrast, are relatively poorly informed as to the
effects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically do know are
generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most people as a result of their
various possible choices, but that is all. That is enough to allow public policy-makers to use the utilitarian
calculus – assuming they want to use it at all – to choose general rules or conduct.
2. No intent-foresight distinction — if we foresee a consequence, then it
becomes part of our deliberation which makes it intrinsic to our action since
we intend it to happen.
3. Only consequentialism explains degrees of wrongness—if I break a promise
to meet up for lunch, that is not as bad as breaking a promise to take a dying
person to the hospital. Only the consequences of breaking the promise
explain why the second one is much worse than the first. Intuitions
outweigh—they’re the foundational basis for any argument and theories
that contradict our intuitions are most likely false even if we can’t
deductively determine why.
4. No act-omission distinction – choosing to omit is an act itself – people
psychologically decide not to act which means being presented with the aff
creates a choice between two actions, neither of which is an omission.
5. Util is a lexical pre-requisite to any other framework: Threats to bodily
security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively utilize
and act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis
that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose – so,
util comes first and my offense outweighs theirs under their own
framework.
6. Reject calc indicts and util triggers permissibility arguments –
A. Empirically denied — both individuals and policymakers carry out
effective cost-benefit analysis which means even if decisions aren’t
always perfect it’s still better than not acting at all.
B. Theory — they’re functionally NIBs that everyone knows are silly but
skew the aff and move the debate away from the topic and actual
philosophical debate, killing valuable education.
C. Morally abhorrent – it would say we have no obligation to prevent
genocide and that slavery was permissible which is morally abhorrent
and makes debate unsafe for minority debaters.
 Plan
Plan Text: In the United States, colleges and universities ought to abolish
admissions tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. I’m willing to clarify or
further specify in CX – gives you stable ground and deters silly theory debates.
 Advantage 1
Colleges have placed more value on standardized testing in recent years –
empirics disprove media talk.
Belasco 18 (Andrew Belasco. A licensed counselor and published researcher, Andrew’s experience in the field of college
admissions and transition spans more than one decade. He has previously served as a high school counselor, consultant and author
for Kaplan Test Prep, and advisor to U.S. Congress, reporting on issues related to college admissions and financial aid. “Do
standardized test scores really matter?”. 7-10-2018. College Transitions. https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/do-standardized-
test-scores-really-matter/) //TruLe

In the last decade, the idea that colleges no longer care that much about standardized test scores has become prevalent in the
admissions discourse. Many schools themselves like to brag about how they view test scores as just one of a multitude of factors in
the admissions process. Yet like a 7th grade boy who spends two hours in front of the mirror every morning trying to perfect his
Justin Bieber bangs while simultaneously proclaiming that he “doesn’t care what anyone thinks,” the facts about test scores quite
simply belie the claim. Despite media talk and institutional reports of the SAT and ACTs diminishing
role, the data suggest that standardized test scores have actually become more important in
recent years. Rankings are still driven in part by test scores. The admissions process at most institutions (with few exceptions
like Reed College) is still beholden to and driven by the almighty rankings. In fact, for their 2018 rankings,
standardized test scores accounted for 8% of U.S. News’ ranking algorithm, which is a greater
weight than factors such as a college’s graduation rate, how many students were in the top 10%
of their high school graduating class, and alumni giving (an indicator of graduate satisfaction).
Not surprisingly, the “top” schools remain the ones whose freshman classes have the highest
SAT scores. Even with over 1,000 schools now test-optional, over 82% of colleges still state that
test scores are important in their admissions decisions. Almost 55% of colleges consider them to
be “very important,” compared with just 46% of schools 25 years ago. As a general rule, larger
schools rely more on test scores than do smaller liberal arts colleges merely as a tool to pare
down a massive applicant pool. In a pragmatic sense, it would be difficult for admissions officers at a school like UCLA to
wade through 113,000+ applications, sans SAT/ACT data, without feeling like a harried cashier in a Weimer Republic farmer’s market
(“I’ll get you your cabbage as soon as I finish counting your 200,000,000,000 marks!”).

Best empirics prove minority students have lower scores on standardized

admissions tests compared to white students.
Reeves and Halikias 17 (Richard V. Reeves and Dimitrios Halikias. Richard V. Reeves is a senior fellow in Economic
Studies, where he holds the John C. and Nancy D. Whitehead Chair. Richard is Director of the Future of the Middle Class Initiative
and co-director of the Center on Children and Families. His research focuses on the middle class, inequality and social mobility.
Dimitri Halikias is a PhD candidate in theory at Harvard University. His research interests broadly cover topics in moral philosophy,
political theory, and the history of political thought. Dimitri earned a BA in ethics, politics, and economics from Yale University and
has worked as a research assistant at the Brookings Institution. He was a Mercatus Center Adam Smith fellow during the 2017-2018
academic year. “Race gaps in SAT scores highlight inequality and hinder upward mobility”. 2-1-2017. Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/) //TruLe

Taking the SAT is an American rite of passage. Along with the increasingly popular ACT, the SAT is critical in identifying student
readiness for college and as an important gateway to higher education. Yet despite efforts to equalize academic opportunity, large
racial gaps in SAT scores persist. THE GREAT SCORE DIVIDE The SAT provides a measure of academic inequality at the end of
secondary schooling. Moreover, insofar as SAT scores predict student success in college, inequalities in the SAT score distribution
reflect and reinforce racial inequalities across generations. In this paper, we analyze racial differences in the math section of the
general SAT test, using publicly available College Board population data for all of the nearly 1.7 million college-bound seniors in 2015
who took the SAT. (We do not use the newest data released for the class of 2016, because the SAT transitioned mid-year to a new
test format, and data has so far only been released for students who took the older test.) Our analysis uses both the College Board’s
descriptive statistics for the entire test-taking class, as well as percentile ranks by gender and race. (The College Board has separate
categories for “Mexican or Mexican American” and “Other Hispanic, Latino, or Latin American.” We have combined them under the
term Latino.) The mean score on the math section of the SAT for all test-takers is 511 out of 800, the average scores for blacks (428)
and Latinos (457) are significantly below those of whites (534) and Asians (598). The scores of black and Latino students are
clustered towards the bottom of the distribution, while white scores are relatively normally distributed, and Asians are clustered at
the top: Race gaps on the SATs are especially pronounced at the tails of the distribution. In a perfectly equal distribution, the racial
breakdown of scores at every point in the distribution would mirror the composition of test-takers as whole i.e. 51 percent white, 21
percent Latino, 14 percent black, and 14 percent Asian. But
in fact, among top scorers—those scoring between
a 750 and 800—60 percent are Asian and 33 percent are white, compared to 5 percent Latino
and 2 percent black. Meanwhile, among those scoring between 300 and 350, 37 percent are Latino, 35 percent are black, 21
percent are white, and 6 percent are Asian: The College Board’s publicly available data provides data on racial composition at 50-
point score intervals. We
estimate that in the entire country last year at most 2,200 black and 4,900
Latino test-takers scored above a 700. In comparison, roughly 48,000 whites and 52,800 Asians
scored that high. The same absolute disparity persists among the highest scorers: 16,000 whites
and 29,570 Asians scored above a 750, compared to only at most 1,000 blacks and 2,400 Latinos.
(These estimates—which rely on conservative assumptions that maximize the number of high-scoring black students, are consistent
with an older estimate from a 2005 paper in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, which found that only 244 black students
scored above a 750 on the math section of the SAT.) A STUBBORN BLACK-WHITE GAP Disappointingly, the black-white
achievement gap in SAT math scores has remained virtually unchanged over the last fifteen
years. Between 1996 and 2015, the average gap between the mean black score and the mean white score has been .92 standard
deviations. In 1996 it was .9 standard deviations and in 2015 it was .88 standard deviations. This means that over the last
fifteen years, roughly 64 percent of all test-takers scored between the average black and
average white score. These gaps have a significant impact on life chances, and therefore on the transmission of inequality
across generations. As the economist Bhashkar Mazumder has documented, adolescent cognitive outcomes (in this case, measured
by the AFQT) statistically account for most of the race gap in intergenerational social mobility. COULD THE GAP BE EVEN WIDER?
There are some limitations to the data which may mean that, if anything, the race gap is being understated. The
ceiling on the
SAT score may, for example, understate Asian achievement. If the exam was redesigned to
increase score variance (add harder and easier questions than it currently has), the achievement
gap across racial groups could be even more pronounced. In other words, if the math section was scored
between 0 and 1000, we might see more complete tails on both the right and the left. More Asians score between 750 and 800 than
score between 700 and 750, suggesting that many Asians could be scoring above 800 if the test allowed them to. A standardized test
with a wider range of scores, the LSAT, offers some evidence on this front. An
analysis of the 2013-2014 LSAT finds
an average black score of 142 compared to an average white score of 153. This amounts to a
black-white achievement gap of 1.06 standard deviations, even higher than that on the SAT. This is
of course a deeply imperfect comparison, as the underlying population of test-takers for the LSAT (those applying to law school) is
very different from that of the SAT. Nonetheless the LSAT distribution provides yet another example of the striking academic
achievement gaps across race: Another important qualification is that the SAT is no longer the nationally dominant college-entrance
exam. In recent years, the ACT has surpassed the SAT in popularity. If the distributions of students taking the two exams are
significantly different, focusing on one test alone won’t give a complete picture of the racial achievement gap. A
cursory look
at the evidence, however, suggests that race gaps on the 2016 ACT are comparable to those we
observe for the SAT. In terms of composition, ACT test-takers were 54 percent white, 16 percent
Latino, 13 percent black, and 4 percent Asian. Except for the substantially reduced share of Asian test-takers, this is
reasonably close to the SAT’s demographic breakdown. Moreover, racial achievement gaps across the two tests were fairly similar.
The black-white achievement gap for the math section of the 2015 SAT was roughly .88 standard
deviations. For the 2016 ACT it was .87 standard deviations. Likewise, the Latino-white achievement gap for
the math section of the 2015 SAT was roughly .65 standard deviations; for the 2016 ACT it was .54 standard deviations. OR COULD
THE GAP BE NARROWER THAN IT LOOKS? On the other hand, there is a possibility that the SAT is racially biased, in which case the
observed racial gap in test scores may overstate the underlying academic achievement gap. But most of the concerns about bias
relate to the verbal section of the SAT, and our analysis focuses exclusively on the math section. Finally, this data is limited in that it
doesn’t allow us to disentangle race and class as drivers of achievement gaps. It is likely that at least some of these racial inequalities
can be explained by different income levels across race. Unfortunately, publicly available College Board data on class and SAT scores
is limited. The average SAT score for students who identify as having parents making between $0 and $20,000 a year is 455, a score
that is actually .2 standard deviations above the average score for black students (428). These numbers are fairly unreliable because
of the low rates of student response; some 40 percent of test-takers do not list their household income. In comparison, only 4
percent of test-takers fail to provide their racial identification. However, a 2015 research paper from the Center
for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley shows that between
1994 and 2011, race has grown more important than class in predicting SAT scores for UC
applicants. While it is difficult to extrapolate from such findings to the broader population of SAT test-takers, it is unlikely that
the racial achievement gap can be explained away by class differences across race. DOWN WITH STANDARDIZED TESTS? Given the
reliance of colleges on test scores for admissions, the gaps in SAT math performance documented here will continue to reproduce
patterns of inequality in American society. It seems likely, however, that colleges rely too heavily on such tests. Research from
William Bowen, Matthew Chingos, and Michael McPherson suggests that high school grades may have more incremental predictive
power of college grades and graduation rates. The SAT may not be a good measure of student potential. Even to the extent that SAT
scores do predict college success, it is far from clear that universities are justified in basing admissions so strongly on the exam. After
all, a wide range of other morally relevant considerations—questions of distributive justice, for example—may well need to be
weighed alongside considerations of academic preparation. Significant racial and class inequalities much earlier in life explain
persistent obstacles to upward mobility and opportunity. The extensive racial gaps in academic achievement and college preparation
across high school seniors are symptomatic of those deeper drivers of inequality. Accordingly, policy efforts may be more effective if
they target underlying sources of these achievement gaps. That means experimenting with earlier childhood interventions of the
sort we have described elsewhere: increasing cash transfers to disadvantaged parents with young children, improving access to
quality preschool programs, pursuing paid leave policies to allow for more quality parent investment during the first years of life,
teaching parents the skills they need to effectively raise their children, and so on. It is also important to bear in mind that despite
persistent gaps in test scores, racial gaps in college enrollment have actually been closing in recent years. In fact, the college
enrollment gap by income is now significantly larger than by race. The challenge now is about college graduation rates (where race
gaps have not closed) as much as college enrollment: for graduation rates, race gaps remain larger than income gaps. It is also clear,
however, that when such large gaps have opened up by the end of the high school years, equalizing outcomes at the college level
will be an almost impossible task. Interventions at the end of the K-12 years, or in the early stages of college, can often be too little,
too late. Debates over the fairness, value and accuracy of the SAT are sure to continue. The evidence for a stubborn race gap on this
test does meanwhile provide a snapshot into the extraordinary magnitude of racial inequality in contemporary American society.
Standardized tests are often seen as mechanisms for meritocracy, ensuring fairness in terms of access. But test scores reflect
accumulated advantages and disadvantages in each day of life up the one on which the test is taken. Race gaps on the SAT hold up a
mirror to racial inequities in society as a whole. Equalizing educational opportunities and human capital acquisition earlier is the only
way to ensure fairer outcomes.

Even College Board’s newest tool in combatting privilege is just another

weapon for rich people to widen the gap.
Newton 19 (Derek Newton. Newton writes about education including education technology (edtech) and higher education.
I've written about these topics and others in a variety of outlets including The Atlantic, Quartz and The Huffington Post. I served as
vice-president at The Century Foundation, a public policy think tank with an emphasis on education and worked for an international
education nonprofit teaching entrepreneurship. I also served as a speech writer for a governor of Florida, worked in the Florida
legislature and attended Columbia University in New York City. I'm a member of the Education Writers Association. “Why The S.A.T.
Adversity Score Is Worse Than No Score At All”. 5-27-2019. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2019/05/27/why-
the-s-a-t-adversity-score-is-worse-than-no-score-at-all/#7b7c1af61ab5) //TruLe

The Wall Street Journal and others reported recently that the SAT, the bell cow of academic
assessment, would add an “adversity score” to its results, providing more context for assessing
the relative strengths of applicants. The new score will add a helpful sense of distance traveled to an otherwise flat
assessment of the place of arrival. On the surface, the new policy is a major concession to the obvious, nasty correlation between
impressive scores and affluence and other privileges. As such, it’s a probably a good, right-hearted idea and few would argue that
knowing more about a student is a bad idea. Nonetheless, the addition of the adversity score has many serious flaws. The most
noted of which is that the information used to calculate the scores – reported to include factors
such as neighborhood crime rate, neighborhood poverty rate and high school performance –
cannot possibly be a serious proxy for any one student’s actual circumstances. Conceding these flaws,
my former colleague Rick Kahlenberg, argued in The Atlantic that, “even an imperfect adversity score is better than failing to
account for the difficulty so many students overcome.” I wish I could agree. Kahlenberg and others see half a loaf, and there are a
great many occasions in which half a loaf is better than none. But my issue with the SAT’s attempts to point out the legitimate
struggles of some test-takers is not that it’s incomplete, which it is, it’s that even this unsatisfying meal will end up on the wrong
table. The New York Times, in reporting on the new score, quoted a college admissions coach saying “he had received emails from
parents asking whether their children’s hard work in preparing for the SAT ‘would be completely negated just because we happen to
have some means.’” In other words, many families with “means” will see the adversity score as a slight, an attempt to undercut and
minimize their advantages. They are not wrong. That is exactly what the new score aims to do. And if you think those families are
going to just accept that, you should refresh your SAT vocabulary skills by listing every synonym you can think of for denial. As
sure as the path of the sun is known, wealthy parents will fudge their children’s enrollments and
shade their advantages simply to boost their adversity scores. And based on what we already
know about what the SAT will count in its scoring, that’s going to be embarrassingly easy to do.
If being enrolled in a below-average high school will boost your scores, what do you think
wealthy parents are going to do days before the SAT registration deadline? If an official address
in a poor neighborhood will get you a bump, there’s going to be a raft of suspicious and
conveniently timed address changes. It’s only a matter of time before highly-resourced, expensive, elite prep schools
establish satellites with official addresses in communities with high adversity scores. If there’s anything at all that this
year’s college admissions cheating and bribery scandal showed it’s that rich people will do
anything, even illegal things, to protect their “hard work” and get their spoiled kids into elite
colleges. And since changing addresses or enrollments is not even illegal, that’s absolutely going to happen; book it. When that
happens, the SAT adversity score will default to another way some families can game the college admissions system. Like private
schools, tutors and SAT prep classes, it won’t be long before enrolling in a private school with an advantageous adversity address will
be seen as an investment in success, not cheating. But
this will be even worse because carpetbagging for
adversity scores will swipe the opportunities intentionally designed for those who cannot game
the system already. And by not looking at student-by-student circumstances, which is probably impossible anyway, the SAT
won’t be able to stop it because it won’t be able to see it. The SAT folks are unquestionably right to recognize the outsized role
adversity plays in the assessment process. But
what they’ve probably done is hand another tool to people
who already have an overflowing toolbox, dangerously underestimating the motivations of
those with means to protect what they think they’ve earned.

The plan solves – only complete abolition can rectify generations of

discrimination.
Hernandez 18 (Theresa E. Hernandez. Theresa E. Hernandez is a scholar of higher education policy working toward her
doctorate at the University of Southern California. Her research examines issues of race, gender, class and intersectional equity in
academia. “Abolish Standardized Testing For College Admissions”. 5-22-2018. Huff Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abolish-
standardized-testing-for-college-admissions_n_5b045869e4b003dc7e470ee3) //TruLe

A new study from the National Association for College Admission Counseling provides evidence that test-optional policies ― a
variety of policies that allow students not to submit scores on standardized tests like the SAT or GRE during the admissions process
― can help colleges improve their diversity without sacrificing academic quality. The
study found that schools that do
not require the SAT/ACT saw an increased enrollment of underrepresented students of color
relative to comparable institutions that require a test score and that admitted students who did
not submit scores were just as likely to graduate as admitted students who did. The report also
found that high school grade point average (GPA) was a better predictor of success in college
GPA than test scores for non-submitters. As of January 2018, over 1,000 colleges and universities have stopped
requiring SAT or ACT scores for undergraduate applicants. The conversation also extends to the graduate level, where institutions
are grappling with whether to use standardized tests, which ones and how. In particular, the Inclusive Graduate Education Network
and the Alliance for Multicampus, Inclusive Graduate Admissions, are promoting and studying the effects of inclusive holistic review
practices. These projects are also exploring what factors of an application are most important for admission to graduate school
versus success in graduate school. (Full disclosure: I am affiliated with IGEN and AMIGA, but the opinions here are mine and do not
necessarily represent these projects or anyone affiliated with them.) The NACAC report contrasts with Measuring Success: Testing,
Grades, and the Future of College Admissions, a recent book published by scholars tied to the testing industry, which argues test-
optional policies are either ineffective at increasing diversity or do no better than similar institutions that require these tests.
Unfortunately, this debate sidesteps a serious issue: the urgent need to seek solutions beyond the ways that selective college
admissions are conducted today. We need to pay attention to the deeper purposes that selection criteria serve — and for whom.
The use of standardized tests in admissions disproportionately exclude people of color and other marginalized groups. The
truth
is that overwhelming research has shown that performance on these tests is better at predicting
demographic characteristics like class, gender and race than educational outcomes. This
disproportionately excludes racial minorities, women and low-income persons from selective colleges. For many practitioners in
higher education, these tests are simply the most efficient and common metric for evaluating students. But
efficiency can no
longer be an excuse for maintaining a flawed system. The only result we can expect from that course of action is
efficiently maintaining the status quo of inequality. The makers and advocates of standardized tests promote the notion that
equality requires we use a singular metric to evaluate everyone in the same way. But
one common tool cannot
equitably measure the potential of people who have been afforded different chances in life. Our
limited resources must be redirected to finding better ways to reach equitable outcomes, which will require offsetting prior
inequality of opportunity and resources. As of January 2018, over 1,000 colleges and universities have stopped requiring SAT or ACT
scores for undergraduate applicants. From
academics to policymakers, people mistakenly believe that
standardized tests are better at predicting college outcomes, like grades and graduation, than
they really are. This uncritical belief in the current system of admissions allows those who have
benefited to feel that they earned their position completely on their own. In reality, our success
is a combination of our effort, our opportunities and the resources to make the most of both.
This misplaced faith also makes us complicit in the exclusion of those who have not had our
same privileges. Even if standardized tests perfectly predicted achievement, they would be
doing so on the basis of accumulated resources that have helped children from privileged
backgrounds to reach the levels of success that they have by the time they take the test. These
testing disparities do not represent students’ potential to learn and achieve. As Jerome Karabel documented in The Chosen: The
Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, standardized tests played a devious role in the history of
admissions at selective institutions. Selection criteria like the SAT/ACT and GRE come out of historical actions that have defined
merit purposefully to exclude students based on their social identities, including religious affiliation. Add
to that history
generations of underfunded schools and a bevy of other racial and class-based discriminations
that continue to hamper the achievements of racially minoritized and low-income students. To
accept any “predictive” measure that perpetuates these inequalities, even indirectly, is a
disservice to communities of color and poor people today and robs future generations of their
potential. For the United States to live up to its highest potential, we have to stop turning away students from the possibilities of
higher education just because their backgrounds have not afforded them the same opportunities or the resources needed to take
advantage of earlier opportunities. To that end, researchers like Estela Bensimon highlight the responsibility of our educators and
educational institutions to better serve marginalized students in order to support the success of all students. So how do we move
forward? Some research indicates that holistic review may be better at judging a student’s potential given the context of their prior
experiences. Many highly selective institutions such as Harvard, Yale and Columbia already claim to practice a version of holistic
review due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s backing of this approach in affirmative action cases. However, these options are largely used
and researched in tandem with standardized tests that produce racially and class-based disparate outcomes. We have inherited a
society built on grave injustices, and we perpetuate them through both intentional acts and failures to redress what has been done.
Higher education, from college to graduate school, can provide the opportunities and resources for people to make the most of their
potential but only if we make access to it more equitable. The only way forward is to enact policies and practices, especially in
education, that are corrective and redistributive. The
time has come to end the perpetuation of systemic
inequity through institutional practices that appear facially neutral, but which have a disparate
impact by race and class. Ending the use of standardized tests at all levels of admissions is one
of the ways we can do so.

Hampshire College proves abolition allows for equitable, accurate, and

complete admissions – prefer our ev, they actually passed the plan and it’s a
top-tier college.
Lash 15 (Jonathan Lash. Jonathan Lash, President of Hampshire College, is also a Director of World Resources Institute, a DC-
based environmental think tank, where he previously served as president. Jonathan is a widely recognized environmental leader
who chaired President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development and was the State of Vermont’s Environmental Secretary
and Commissioner. He holds a law degree and master’s degree in education from Catholic University of America and a bachelor’s
from Harvard College. “Results of Removing Standardized Test Scores from College Admissions”. 9-21-2015. Hampshire College.
https://www.hampshire.edu/news/2015/09/21/results-of-removing-standardized-test-scores-from-college-admissions) //TruLe
We completely dropped standardized tests from our application as part of our new mission-
driven admissions strategy, distinct from the “test-optional” policy that hundreds of colleges
now follow. If we reduce education to the outcomes of a test, the only incentive for schools and students to innovate is in the
form of improving test-taking and scores. Teaching to a test becomes stifling for teachers and students, far from the inspiring,
adaptive education which most benefits students. Our greatly accelerating world needs graduates who are trained to
address tough situations with innovation, ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and a capacity for mobilizing collaboration and
cooperation. We weighed other factors in our decision: Standardized test scores do not predict a student’s success at our college.
SATs/ACTs are strongly biased against low-income students and students of color, at a time when diversity is critical to our mission.
We surveyed our students and learned not one of them had considered rankings when choosing to apply to colleges; instead they
most cared about a college’s mission. Some good students are bad test takers, particularly under stress, such as when a test may
grant or deny college entry; Multiple-choice tests don't reveal much about a student. We’ve developed much better, fairer ways to
assess students who will thrive at our college. Inour admissions, we review an applicant’s whole academic
and lived experience. We consider an applicant’s ability to present themselves in essays and
interviews, review their recommendations from mentors, and assess factors such as their
community engagement and entrepreneurism. And yes, we look closely at high school academic records, though in
an unconventional manner. We look for an overarching narrative that shows motivation, discipline, and
the capacity for self-reflection. We look at grade point average (GPA) as a measure of
performance over a range of courses and time, distinct from a one-test-on-one-day SAT/ACT
score. A student’s consistent "A" grades may be coupled with evidence of curiosity and learning
across disciplines, as well as leadership in civic or social causes. Another student may have
overcome obstacles through determination, demonstrating promise of success in a demanding
program. Strong high school graduates demonstrate purpose, a passion for authenticity, and
commitment to positive change. We’re seeing remarkable admissions results since disregarding standardized test
scores: Our yield, the percentage of students who accepted our invitation to enroll, rose in a single
year from 18% to 26%, an amazing turnaround. The quantity of applications went down but the quality went up,
likely because we made it harder to apply, asking for more essays; Our applicants collectively were more
motivated, mature, disciplined and consistent in their high school years than past applicants.
Class diversity increased to 31% students of color, the most diverse in our history, up from 21%
two years ago. The percentage of students who are the first-generation from their family to
attend college rose from 12% to 18% in this year’s class. Our “No SAT/ACT policy” has also changed us in ways
deeper than data and demographics: Not once did we sit in an Admissions committee meeting and "wish we had a test score."
Without the scores, every other detail of the student’s application became more vivid. Their
academic record over four years, letters of recommendation, essays, in-person interviews, and the optional creative supplements
gave us a more complete portrait than we had seen before. Applicants gave more attention to their applications including the
optional components, putting us in a much better position to predict their likelihood of success here. This move away from test
scores and disqualification from the U.S. News rankings has allowed us to innovate in ways we could not before. In other words, we
are free to innovate rather than compromise our mission to satisfy rankings criteria: We no longer chase volumes of applications to
superficially inflate our "selectivity" and game the U.S. News rankings. We no longer have to worry that any applicant will "lower our
average SAT/ACT scores" and thus lower our U.S. News ranking. Instead
we choose quality over quantity and
focus attention and resources on each applicant and their full portfolio. At college fairs and information
sessions, we don’t spend time answering high school families’ questions about our ranking and test score "cut-offs." Instead we have
conversations about the things that matter: What does our unique academic program look like and what qualities does a student
need to be successful at it? An unexpected benefit: this shift has saved us significant time and operational expense. Having a smaller
but more targeted, engaged, passionate, and robust applicant pool, we are able to streamline our resources. How can U.S. News
rankings reliably measure college quality when their data-points focus primarily on the high school performance of the incoming
class in such terms as GPA, SAT/ACT, class rank, and selectivity? These measures have nothing to do with the college’s results, except
perhaps in the college’s aptitude for marketing and recruiting. Tests and rankings incentivize schools to conform
to test performance and rankings criteria, at the expense of mission and innovation. Our shift to a
mission-driven approach to admissions is right for Hampshire College and the right thing to do. We fail students if we
reduce them to a standardized test number tied more to their financial status than achievement.
We fail students by perpetuating the myth that high standardized test scores signal "better" students. We are in the top one
percent of colleges nationwide in the percentage of our undergraduate alumni who go on to
earn advanced degrees—this on the strength of an education where we assess their capabilities
narratively, and where we never, not once, subject them to a numerical or letter grade on a test
or course. At Hampshire College, we face the same financial challenges as many colleges. But these challenges provide an
opportunity to think about who we are and what matters to us. We can not lose sight of our mission while seeking revenues or
chasing rankings. We are committed to remaining disqualified from the U.S. News rankings. We’re done with standardized testing,
the SAT, and ACT.
 Advantage 2
Standardized testing creates structural barriers against students with learning
disabilities.
FairTest 17 (The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) works to end the misuses and flaws of standardized
testing and to ensure that evaluation of students, teachers and schools is fair, open, valid and educationally beneficial.,
"Standardized Testing And Students With Disabilities", 3-30-2017, FairTest, https://www.fairtest.org/standardized-testing-and-
students-disabilities) // dl

Does Inclusion in Testing Mean Inclusion in Meaningful Learning? Federal law requires 95% test participation, including for the vast
majority of students with disabilities. (One percent of all students may be assessed to alternative standards with alternative
assessments. Federal law leaves it up to each state to decide what to do if a school or district does not test 95%.) The
theory is
that full inclusion in testing will drive full inclusion in learning the “standard” academic
curriculum. But for some students with significant disabilities, state standardized tests are
cognitively inappropriate. They may become a grueling and traumatic exercise, wasting time that could be spent working
to make progress on their individual learning goals. For some, the testing borders on (or crosses the line) into abuse. For example,
the mother of a profoundly disabled Florida student described how her son got pressure sores and developed respiratory infections
after long test sessions in his wheelchair. A
focus on including Students with Disabilities (SWDs) in
standardized testing puts the cart of testing before the horse of delivering appropriate
instruction, services and supports. Special educators and advocates note that access to the latter is increasingly limited
by budget and staffing cuts, especially in high-poverty districts, while investments in test development and administration, and
associated technology, continue to grow. Barriers to success on standardized exams for SWDs include lack
of access to learning the material on the tests. This sometimes results from “restrictive”
placements, in which children with disabilities are separated from other students, then not
given full access to the mainstream curriculum. Research indicates that states with high school
graduation tests are more likely to place SWDs in more restrictive settings. This runs counter to
a pillar of special education law, which calls for students to be placed in the “least restrictive
environment” possible. Students often do not receive services during test time because teachers
are supervising the testing. Other barriers to success include lack of access to accommodations
that are sometimes helpful. These include extra time, text-to-speech tools and Braille (see more
below). Another problem for students with disabilities is the overreliance on standardized test scores to make important
decisions about student placement, advancement from grade to grade and graduation. All these policies have been shown to have
negative consequences for students in general. However, the harms tend to be greatest for this student subgroup, including an
extreme narrowing of curriculum to little more than test preparation. SWDs and English Language Learners are the groups most
likely to be denied high school diplomas as a result of failing high school graduation tests. Many
commonly used test
accommodations, such as extra time, can be a double-edged sword. Extra time may help some
SWDs do better. Often, however, it leads to such students spending many hours working to
complete a flawed standardized exam instead of focusing on their individual learning goals,
without any score gain. Updated accommodations developed for Common Core tests like SBAC have not fulfilled their
promise of giving SWDs better access to the tested material. For example, teachers described a dictation tool for SBAC testing that
read the text rapidly in a robotic voice, leaving students baffled and unable to answer test questions. Computer-adaptive testing
(CAT) can create added hurdles for SWDs. CAT adjusts the level of difficulty up or down, depending on whether or not students
answer correctly. But special educators warn that a SWD who is “rewarded” for getting the right answer with a more difficult test
question could become overwhelmed by the increased difficulty and shut down, or stop trying. On the other hand, students who
recognize that they are being given easier and easier questions may internalize the message that they are not “smart,” or not
capable learners. When students with disabilities are subject to high-stakes decisions based on standardized test results, they are at
higher risk of negative consequences such as repeating a grade, dropping out, or completing school with something other than a full-
fledged high school diploma, such as a certificate of completion. The latter has little value in terms of the opportunities to pursue
higher education or obtain employment. Multiple measures of student knowledge and skills are the best, most fair and accurate
approach to assessment for all students, especially for students with disabilities. The priority should be on high-quality, teacher-led
classroom assessments that provide multiple ways and opportunities for students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills.
Study proves a huge score gap between learning-disabled and non-disabled
students regardless of time accommodations.
Mandinach et al 05 (Ellen B. Mandinach is associate director for research at EDC Center for Children and Technology
and was formerly a senior research scientist at Educational Testing Service. Brent Bridgeman is principal research scientist at
Educational Testing Service. Cara Cahalan-Laitusis is a research scientist at Educational Testing Service. Catherine Trapani is a
research data analyst at Educational Testing Service., " The Impact of Extended Time on SAT® Test Performance", 2005, College
Board, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED563027.pdf) // dl

The exams causes some to be left behind, widening the gap between learning-
disabled and non-disabled students.
Alex 16 ("How Do Standardized Tests Put Certain Students At A Disadvantage?", 4-14-2016, Penn State University,
https://sites.psu.edu/alexaugustcivicissues/2016/04/14/how-do-standardized-tests-put-certain-students-at-a-disadvantage/) // dl

The most prominent reason why people support keeping standardized testing the way that it is now is that it provides a seemingly
fair way to test students on their general knowledge and preparedness level. If each student goes to class, is taught the same
material, and studies that material to the point of understanding, then all students should be equally prepared for the tests, and
should do relatively well. Success
is seen as a matter of effort: the more time a student dedicates to
studying and understanding the material provided for them in the classroom, the better they
will do on the exams, demonstrating a higher preparedness for the next level of education. If a
student is struggling to understand material or scoring on the lower end of the spectrum, then the only solution is to dedicate more
time to studying, and simply try harder. This,
however, is not the case when it comes to certain students.
Learning disabilities such as ADHD and dyslexia greatly inhibit a student’s abilities to perform
well on these tests, which has nothing to do with the amount of effort that the student is
putting into learning and understanding material. Although there are federal laws in place that
require students with learning disabilities to receive certain accommodations and auxiliary aids
that should help them to perform better on these examinations, the specific accommodations
are a source of contention, and students often don’t receive all of the aid that they should.
Regulations are uneven across states, and legal challenges are constantly being made on behalf of students who suffer from learning
disabilities to bring about more reasonable accommodations on high-stakes standardized tests. There are also no cost-effective
opportunities for remediation in place for when a student fails to pass one of these tests. Studies have shown that the
economic costs of helping students with learning deficits to pass tests such as the SATs and ACTs
are often overlooked, and, in reality, can be cripplingly high. It is shown that, without any real mastery of a
subject, scores can increase with repetition, so remediation should be targeted to the skill and knowledge deficit that is reflected in
the exam, so that understanding can increase and a mastery of the subject can be accomplished. Students in urban areas are also at
a disadvantage, since they often have access to fewer resources when it comes to test preparation in general. Schools in these areas
are, under the No Child Left Behind Act, the ones that must achieve the largest increase in test scores, and therefore must designate
more and more in-class time to standardized test preparation each year, which forces teachers to teach according to the test, and
forces students to make a substantially larger commitment to preparation and studying than their suburban counterparts, both in
and outside of the classroom. This sentiment is best represented by a quote by Robert Schaeffer, the public education director at the
National Center for Fair and Open Testing: he says “in those kinds of schools, the curriculum becomes test prep: doing worksheets
and practice tests and getting ready for the big test.” A recent report released by the Center for American Progress has shown that
students in these areas spend as much as 266 percent more time studying and preparing for tests, a commitment that many
students cannot make. There is only so much class time that can be dedicated to test prep, and at the cost of the quality of the
student’s education, no less. So, in short, standardized tests can, in no way, be considered to be an equal playing field, since it places
so many subgroups of students at a disadvantage, and fails to provide them with the resources that would allow them to achieve
higher scores. These examples show that certain
groups of students are left behind by standardized tests:
they are unable to keep up with other students, and therefore fall behind. They are then faced
with another challenge when they are forced to take the same tests as students that are doing
perfectly well in school and can understand the material well. They are therefore sort of left
behind twice, once in the classroom, and then again when they are faced with standardized
tests.

Testing accommodations fail and disproportionately benefit the wealthy – only

abolition solves.
Goldstein and Patel 19 (Dana Goldstein is a national correspondent for The New York Times and a two-time finalist
for The Livingston Award. Jugal K. Patel is a correspondent for The New York Times, "Need Extra Time On Tests? It Helps To Have
Cash", 7-30-2019, No Publication, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/extra-time-504-sat-act.html) // dl

The boom began about five years ago, said Kathy Pelzer, a longtime high school counselor in an affluent part of Southern California.
More students than ever were securing disability diagnoses, many seeking additional time on
class work and tests. A junior taking three or four Advanced Placement classes, who was stressed out and sleepless. A
sophomore whose grades were slipping, causing his parents angst. Efforts to transfer the children to less difficult courses, Ms. Pelzer
said, were often a nonstarter for their parents, who instead turned to private practitioners to see whether a diagnosis — of
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, perhaps, or anxiety or depression — could explain the problem. Such
psychological
assessments can cost thousands of dollars, and are often not covered by insurance. For some
families, the ultimate goal was extra time — for classroom quizzes, essays, state achievement
tests, A.P. exams and ultimately the SAT and ACT. “You’ll get what you’re looking for if you pay
the $10,000,” Ms. Pelzer said, citing the highest-priced evaluations. “It’s a complicated mess.” From Weston, Conn., to Mercer
Island, Wash., word has spread on parenting message boards and in the stands at home games: A federal disability
designation known as a 504 plan can help struggling students improve their grades and test
scores. But the plans are not doled out equitably across the United States. In the country’s
richest enclaves, where students already have greater access to private tutors and admissions
coaches, the share of high school students with the designation is double the national average.
In some communities, more than one in 10 students have one — up to seven times the rate
nationwide, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data. In Weston, where the
median household income is $220,000, the rate is 18 percent, eight times that of Danbury, Conn., a city 30
minutes north. In Mercer Island, outside Seattle, where the median household income is $137,000, the number is 14 percent. That is
about six times the rate of nearby Federal Way, Wash., where the median income is $65,000. Students in every ZIP code are dealing
with anxiety, stress and depression as academic competition grows ever more cutthroat. But the sharp disparity in accommodations
raises the question of whether families in moneyed communities are taking advantage of the system, or whether they simply have
the means to address a problem that less affluent families cannot. While experts say that known cases of outright fraud are rare,
and that most disability diagnoses are obtained legitimately, there is little doubt that the process is vulnerable to
abuse. Some of the learning differences exist in diagnostic gray areas that can make it difficult to determine whether a teenager is
struggling because of parental and school pressure or because of a psychological impairment. And private mental health
practitioners operate with limited oversight, either from school systems or from within their own professions. Many
Americans got their first look at disability accommodations in the wake of the college
admissions scandal, in which affluent parents were accused of hiring a consultant, William
Singer, to cheat their children’s way into prestigious universities through a variety of schemes.
According to court papers, Mr. Singer directed families to a handpicked psychologist in Los Angeles, telling one of his clients, a
powerful Connecticut lawyer, that his daughter should “be stupid” during the psychologist’s evaluation. The goal was for her to
receive an accommodation that would enable her to take the ACT in a private room, before a proctor in his employ would correct
her answer sheet. In a phone call recorded by the F.B.I., Mr. Singer assured the student’s father that “all the wealthy families” were
shopping for diagnoses. “The playing field is not fair,” he said. An Unequal Diagnosis In Washington, D.C., one mother said she had
spent about $7,000 on neuropsychological evaluations for her son, now 17. She had little doubt that he needed extra help but she
acknowledged that her family had resources that others in similar situations did not. “It’s totally unfair,” said the mother, who works
in political communications and asked not to be named because she wanted to keep her child’s medical history private. “I know how
to advocate for my kid. We made sure he got what he needed and it wasn’t always clear. We bring that privilege to the table.” In
early childhood, her son had delays in speech, language and fine motor skills, struggling to sound out words and hold a pencil. By
middle school, he had A.D.H.D. and anxiety diagnoses. His charter high school gave him a 504 plan, which offered extra time on tests
and the use of a keyboard to type answers and take notes in class. He was also able to avoid filling in bubble sheets. The 504 plans,
which get their name from Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, are intended to help people who have a physical or mental
impairment that “substantially limits” learning or other activities. They offer students such accommodations as a seat at the front of
the classroom or a private room for exams, free of distractions. One of the most common accommodations is extra time on
classroom tests, which the two main college admissions testing companies, the College Board and ACT, look for when determining
whether to grant students additional time for their exams. Many students struggle to complete standardized tests in the allotted
minutes, and research has found that having more time can raise scores for students who have a decent grasp of the test material,
whether or not they have a disability. The testing agencies also look for detailed diagnostic evaluations conducted within the last
several years. The Washington student, who was thriving in his advanced classes, was repeatedly evaluated both by his public
schools, for free, and by private practitioners hired by his parents, one of whom provided a 32-page report that the family and
school submitted to ACT and the College Board. He got extended time on the ACT, and scored a 35 out of 36. The College Board
allowed him to circle answers in his SAT booklet instead of filling in bubbles, but rejected his request for more time, even though his
parents appealed the decision twice. He still scored a 1560 out of 1600, and will attend a Midwestern liberal arts college in the fall.
In an analysis of Department of Education data, The Times looked at students with 504 designations at more than 11,000 high
schools across the country. It did not include students who are served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a
further-reaching program that can also offer extra testing time, but is generally meant for students more severely affected by
disabilities. The Times found a glaring wealth gap in 504 designations. At high schools in the richest
school districts — the top 1 percent as measured by census income data — 5.8 percent of
students held a 504 plan, more than double the national average of 2.7 percent. Some wealthy
districts had 504 rates of up to 18 percent. Public high schools in the nation’s richest districts
have a higher share of 504 students, on average, than most other schools. There were also racial
disparities, The Times found. A larger percentage of white students held a 504 plan than students of
any other race. The Cleveland Metropolitan School District, one of the poorest in the country,
had a 504 rate of less than 1 percent, though a fifth of the district’s students had disabilities with
needs that were generally too severe to be covered solely by 504 accommodations, said Jessica
Baldwin, the district’s executive director of intervention services. “The impact of poverty can’t be understated
here,” Ms. Baldwin said.