What is Section 309 of the ADA, and how does it relate to the SAT/ACT?

As we’ve discussed in Facebook posts, the College Board and ACT are not K-12 establishments, so they are not required to follow Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, there’s a little-known section of the ADA that does apply to them — Section 309. 

In September 2010 the DOJ revised the ADA and implemented Title III, which covers public accommodations and commercial facilities. This section covers what College Board and ACT (plus ANY exam that is required for college entrance, licensing, certification or credentialing) must offer as far as accommodations and what documentation may be required. 

As defined by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the tests covered are “exams administered by any private, state, or local government entity related to applications, licensing, certification, or credentialing for secondary or postsecondary education, professional, or trade purposes.”

This section outlines that individuals with disabilities are eligible to receive necessary testing accommodations regardless of any “positive effects” that occur due to medication, supplies, or equipment. For example, the College Board or ACT cannot deny accommodations to an ADHD student who is treating the condition with medication. 

However, the section goes on to say that even with interventions, like medication, the student must still demonstrate “substantial limitations”. This is why we see many denials come through that cite that there isn’t a record that the impairment (i.e. dyslexia, ADHD) is significantly impacting performance. 

The section also goes on to outline what documentation is expected when supporting the request for accommodations. The “request for testing accommodations must be reasonable and limited to the need for the requested testing accommodations.” This relates to the recommendations section of the neuropsych evaluation. If the ACT or College Board doesn’t agree that the request is reasonable or appropriate, they have a right to deny or change the requested accommodations. For example, I had a student whose neurologist recommended extended time for POTS. However, the testing agency approved unlimited untimed breaks instead, because, they felt, this accommodation was more appropriate and helpful for their exam. 

This section also protects students by requiring the testing agencies to make their determinations about approved accommodations in a timely manner (enough time to register and prepare). Finally, the section also prohibits “flagging.” Flagging is a practice that was banned in 2010 where a score report was sent to schools with an announcement that the test was taken with accommodations. 

All in all, there are very few examples of testing agencies violating Section 309. In a government audit that took place from 2019-2020, there were 90,000 complaints filed with the DOJ about violations of the ADA; only 100 of them related to testing accommodations. Out of the 100, for various reasons, none were found to be in violation and were closed without litigation.  

For more information about Section 309 visit — https://www.ada.gov/resources/testing-accommodations/#fn:1

What the dismantling of the Department of Education will do to the IDEA act

This month’s blog post comes from Julianna O’Hara, WRH College Prep’s corporate counsel. Julianna has spent her legal career helping children defend themselves in the legal system. We are fortunate to have her as part of the WRH College Prep family and for her knowledge of these important legal issues that affect our students.

The law now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was established in 1975. IDEA opened doors for millions of disabled students who had been institutionalized or denied an education on the basis of disability. Fifty years later, this law—in tandem with Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act—continues to ensure students with disabilities in every community are provided with a “free appropriate public education.”

Recently, the Trump Administration has announced plans to close the Department of Education. Legally, the executive branch cannot dismantle the Department of Education or alter IDEA funding congressional approval. These would be presented as two separate proposals. The elimination of the Department of Education does not automatically dismantle IDEA — Congress must vote to eliminate IDEA. 

However, the closing of the Department of Education would transfer two of its key functions to state oversight and enforcement. These two functions are:

  • enforcing critical civil rights laws—including IDEA, Section 504, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act—that protect disabled students from discrimination and ensure they receive the educational supports they need to succeed

  • distributing congressionally mandated IDEA funding to the states to help them provide services to public school students with disabilities. 

Under IDEA, public schools must provide children with qualifying disabilities the supports they need to make meaningful academic progress in the least restrictive learning environment (PDF). These specific supports are mapped by teachers, administrators, and parents in each child’s Individualized Education Program (IEPs). These programs are legally binding and establish what special education services and accommodations a school must provide to help a student succeed. Currently, more than 7.5 million students across the US have an IEP, representing more than 15 percent of all public school students ages 3–21.

State and local governments provide 90 percent of funding for public schools (K-12) in the United States. But federal funding also has an important role in providing special education under IDEA and Section 504 (PDF). Last year, the Department of Education distributed more than $15 billion in IDEA funding (up to 12 percent of school district spending on special education). The law allows the federal government to cover up to 40 percent of the average per-student cost of special education. The US Department of Education is critical to ensuring disabled children in every community have access to a free, appropriate public education.

How Neurodiverse Students can Self-Study for the SAT and ACT

WRH College Prep is focused on helping neurodiverse students prepare for the SAT and ACT. We always suggest that students with differences beyond basic ADHD or ASD, or students with a PSAT score below take the paper ACT, we work with all kinds of students with all kinds of learning profiles. There are lots of things, we, as tutors, do to help our students, but for families who cannot afford tutoring or want some tips to start at home early, we have included some things you can do without a tutor’s help!

  • Dedicate time each week

Set aside a specific time each week for studying for the SAT or ACT. At WRH College Prep, we do not vary our session time each week (unless there’s an emergency) because we want to make sure students are prepared for this dedicated time. They know exactly when homework needs to be completed, and they are ready with their standardized test brain at that time each week. 

  • Only study for one test (SAT or ACT)

The strategies vary greatly between the two tests and the math content varies significantly. Don’t muddy the waters, choose one to prep for. You can always take both along the way or switch directions. However, don’t spend time studying the strategies and content for both. 

  • Use Quality Study Guides

Avoid the big box content and definitely avoid any mock tests not developed by the ACT or College Board. That means you should only be using mocks from the big red ACT book or from College Board’s Bluebook App. When looking for quality practice material, use materials in the format that your child will be taking the test. For instance, we highly recommend No BS Test Prep for the SAT because it’s web-based and follows the format your student will see on test day. On the other hand, since all ACT test takers should be taking the paper test, all practice materials should be in book or paper form. We suggest Marks Education ACT Math Workbook, Erika Meltzer’s English and Reading books, and Robin Slatty’s Science prep guide. 

  • Focus on the Basics

It seems counter-intuitive, but the score rises and falls based on the easy questions, not the difficult ones. Until students can get the basic questions correct 90% of the time, without hesitation and struggle, should you focus on learning new things. 

  • Keep an error log

Keep a list of content mistakes that are being made on mock tests. Focus on studying the “high yield” concepts (the ones you’re missing the most of), then once you lower the error rate on that concept move on to the 2nd most missed. Don’t try to fix everything at once. 

  • Start early and take your time

This process is a marathon, not a sprint. Neurodiverse students don’t typically start seeing significant results from working with a tutor until around 14 hours of tutoring (about 30 hours of total studying including homework), and neurotypical students don’t start seeing significant results until about 10 hours of tutoring (about 20 hours of total studying including homework). Self-studying usually takes even longer to see results. 

And remember, if all else fails, hire a professional tutor. Tutors who dedicate their time to studying the nuances of these tests are more expensive than the neighborhood tutor you find through Wyzant, but a professional tutor tends to yield higher increases in shorter amounts of time. Look for tutors like those at WRH College Prep who are dedicated to their craft and part of professional organizations like NACAC and the National Test Prep Association. 

Why the Discrepancy Approach in Diagnosing Learning Differences is a Bad Idea

This month’s blog post comes from guest contributor Dr. Scott Hamilton, a licensed clinical psychologist at Understanding Minds in Atlanta, GA. We asked Dr. Hamilton to explain the “discrepancy approach” to diagnosing Learning Differences and why many organizations will no longer accept that methodology when applying for accommodations.

For many years, the “discrepancy approach” had been the gold standard in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. This approach typically involves comparing a student’s academic achievement to their cognitive abilities (i.e., “IQ”), with the theory that a significant gap between the two indicates the presence of a learning disability. However, this method presents several shortcomings, leaving it an unsound basis for diagnosis. In fact, many states (including Georgia) no longer allow the discrepancy approach in the identification of learning disabilities in public schools.

There are myriad reasons why the discrepancy approach is unsound. For one, the discrepancy approach relies heavily on standardized testing. Standardized tests may not accurately reflect a student’s true abilities or potential due to various factors including test anxiety, cultural bias, and socioeconomic disparities. Many students who struggle academically do not have a corresponding low IQ score, which means they may be overlooked for necessary interventions despite facing significant barriers to learning.

Secondly, imagine a scenario where Student A with a 130 Full Scale IQ has reading scores around 95 (the 37th percentile). This is more than a two-standard deviation “discrepancy” under the old ways, which may have been flagged as signs of a learning disability. The reality is that Student A’s reading score is still normatively average. Now, take Student B, with a full-scale IQ of 92 (30th percentile), but reading scores

around 82 (12th percentile). This may not have been seen as a severe enough “discrepancy” to qualify as a student with a learning disability. But which student truly needs the resources more? Under the old system, there was the potential that Student B would be denied, and Student A would receive services.

Additionally, the discrepancy model fails to account for the dynamic nature of learning and development. Learning disabilities can manifest differently depending on the context and the specific skills being measured. A student may exhibit strengths in certain areas while struggling in others, and a static comparison of IQ and achievement does not capture these nuances. A rigid classification can lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate educational placements, depriving students of the tailored support they need.

More troubling, relying on cut-off scores to determine eligibility for services can be arbitrary and exclusionary. For instance, a student who scores just below the threshold may be denied the help they require, while another student with a similar level of need but a slightly lower discrepancy might receive support. This creates an inequitable system that does not address the individualized nature of learning challenges.

While the discrepancy approach has been a traditional method for diagnosing learning disabilities, it has notable limitations. Neuroscience would tell us that students need comprehensive and holistic assessment strategies. The movement in recent years has been towards consideration of multiple factors, such as performance in the classroom, teacher observations, and a profile analysis of a student’s strengths and challenges.

Using a holistic approach that considers multiple factors will result in more accurate diagnoses and better educational outcomes for students facing learning challenges. If you see a psychoeducational assessment that talks about “discrepancy” between cognitive abilities and academic achievement scores, you should immediately question that psychologist’s knowledge and experience with the latest methods to identify learning disorders.

Dr. Scott Hamilton

Understanding Minds, PC

scott@understandingmindsatl.com

My student can't finish the SAT/ACT within time! They need accommodations!

I cannot tell you how many inquiries I get every month with this as the main reason the parents are reaching out. Sometimes the student is working with a tutor who is giving this feedback, and sometimes it’s the student complaining; either way, I have to be the bearer of bad news — neither the SAT nor ACT will approve accommodations simply because your student cannot finish the test.

Standardized tests have to have time limits to make them standardized. They test straightforward concepts that rarely, if ever, require “deep thinking.” They reward students who have such a strong understanding of a concept that they can work through the material quickly, without pause. In other words, these tests are not designed for all students to be able to finish them. The middle 50th percentile ACT score is a little over an 18 currently, and the SAT is around a 1050. That essentially means that 50% of the approximately 4 million test takers score above those numbers and 50% below.

So what does that all really mean? Let’s use a sports analogy. This will age me, but many of you will remember the President’s physical fitness test that we had to do every year. If no one practiced any of the exercises that were tested, some students would still hit that 6-minute mile that would earn them the 85th percentile and that award at the end of the school year. Some, like me, were highly athletic but looked like a baby deer just learning how to walk when trying to run a mile — no matter how hard I practiced, I could never hit even the 10-minute mile required to hit the 50th percentile. But I also never really trained, I never really learned form, and running never became a natural movement for me; I just ran, not understanding the kinesiology behind it, not truly learning how to make running natural. So my speed has never really improved. Still today, I only run about a 14-minute mile (and only if my trainer forces me to).

So as tutors and parents, the best thing we can do for these kids is focus on that muscle memory. Where can we build the student’s confidence so they can attack the basic concepts with little to no second thought? Instead of doing mock test after mock test, make sure the student can PEMDAS without thinking twice. Instead of time drills, make sure your student can identify the subject of a sentence without hesitation. When those fundamentals come naturally, you’ll see the student speed up and get through more of the test.

Unfortunately, accommodations aren’t the quick solution for neurotypical students, and it’s unfair for neurotypical students who do not clinically require them to request their use. It diminishes their importance for those of us who have legitamitly needed accommodations in our lives.

As all of my students know, I have fairly bad dyslexia and because of my age, I was never able to use accommodations on standardized tests (old red flag rules, aka colleges knew if you used accommodations). I was terrible at timing; I made careless errors; I glossed over when reading to the point that on the PSAT I wrote my own answers for Reading into the test booklet and left the answer sheet blank (very proud moment for my parents, I’m sure). I wasn’t confident in my natural abilities, so I struggled.

Today, I’ve taken over 50 ACT’s (probably closer to 80). Yes, I know a few little tutoring tricks, but it’s just a basic understanding of the test and a deep fundamental understanding of the material that allows me to finish the English section in about 14 min, and Math in about 40. Because of my dyslexia, I still barely make it through Reading and Science within time, but that’s okay. The point is, I’ve learned how to run the mile in the target time…my 5th grade self is very proud.

Upcoming Changes to the ACT

The ACT announced some upcoming changes to the ACT. There isn’t a ton of specific information available yet (especially in regards to accommodations), but I wanted to give a short rundown of what we know so far.

If you don’t have time to read all of the below, here’s the TL;TR version… the ACT is becoming shorter, and friends don’t let friends take the digital ACT. :-)

The most significant change is that the Science section will become optional, just like the writing. I predict that eventually STEM-focused majors and schools will require the score. Additionally, I foresee the Science section evolving to become a section that actually tests science knowledge, rather than just reading graphs and tables. This was partially confirmed by the ACT during a call in July when they confirmed that a passage with a focus on engineering will be included.

Moving to 3 mandatory sections means that the new composite score will be calculated by averaging just English, Math and Reading. Science will be reported separately. Colleges have not given any indication of how they will be super-scoring the old and new tests, but I predict that there will be minimal impact given the limited content changes to the test, which I’ll go through below.

The test will be offered to all students on national test dates in both digital and paper formats. Students can decide which they prefer, but I STRONGLY suggest that students avoid the digital format at all costs. More information about that is below.

Content and Structure Changes

English content will remain the same, with a focus on testing grammar. The number of questions will be reduced to 50 and students will have 35 minutes to complete the section. This change is very welcome since the current version has a lot of “bloat” meaning they test the same concepts A LOT!

Math content will remain the same, and students will be thrilled to hear that the “series” questions (the ones with 3 or 4 questions relating to a graph or table) will be going away. Word problems will be written to be less wordy, with less “fluff”. There will now also be 4 answer choices available, instead of 5. The number of questions is being reduced to 45, and students will have 50 minutes to complete the section.

Reading changes will help students a ton, as the number of questions will be reduced to 36 and the section's time will increase to 40 minutes. I suspect there will be some changes to the types of passages the ACT will select, and we may see some more difficult content and vocabulary introduced.

Finally, there will no longer be a “5th section” of experimental questions that did not count towards the section or composite scores. Instead, those “experimental” questions will be interspersed throughout the test, so students will not be aware of which ones in a section will count and which ones won’t. The English section will have 10 experimental questions, Math will have 4, and Reading will have 9. Although the ACT has announced those figures, I personally do not believe they will stay that way, so I expect to have to update them moving forward.

Timing of Rollout and Paper vs Digital

The ACT will roll out this new test structure for online testers in April 2025. I am very much not a fan of the online platform. I do not suggest anyone willingly take the digital ACT as long as a paper test is available.

The digital format is clunky and difficult to navigate, especially in the reading section. Toggling between questions causes scrolling issues, and there is a very known issue with lag times when moving between questions that cause major timing issues (basically the lag eats away at the extra time this new format is giving you!). The ACT is working on developing a new platform, but until that rolls out and is tested nationally, I would run far away from that format.

The paper version of the test will not change until the September 2025 test, so all current Juniors (class of 2026) need to finish testing by July 2025 so as not to be affected by the changes.

We do not have samples of the new test yet; however, the ACT has promised to release samples by early 2025. As I stated above, I don’t believe there will be major changes to the way questions are structured, so using current materials to prep will likely not be an issue.

Changes to Accommodations

I am very lucky to have a great relationship with the ACT accommodations department, and they have shared that they are currently not planning on adjusting available accommodations. There will still be a multiday accommodation over 3 days (one section per day) even with the shortened format. I do believe that, eventually, we will see some changes to how the multi-day format will be executed (giving 2 days instead if 3), but I do not foresee that happening in 2025.

As always, WRH College Prep is here to help. We are following all of these changes closely, so you don’t have to! Please reach out to us with any questions at info@wrhcollegeprep.com