Staff Reports
Parents are now spending thousands—sometimes close to $10,000—on private neuropsychological evaluations to get their kids extra time on the SAT and ACT. It sounds like an expensive hustle, and in many cases it is. But this is not just about clever parents and cash; it’s about a system that pushes families into a private market to prove what schools should be finding and supporting in the first place.
The surge in SAT/ACT accommodations
Testing agencies report a sharp rise in accommodated test takers. Roughly 6.7% of SAT students received accommodations in the most recent year, up from about 2% a decade ago. The ACT shows a similar increase, with roughly 7% recently getting accommodations versus lower rates years earlier. “Extended time” isn’t a tiny perk — it can be time‑and‑one‑half, double time, extra breaks, and other changes that meaningfully change a timed test. Those numbers matter because extra time on a high‑stakes test often changes admissions outcomes.
Why parents are paying up to $10,000
Here’s the ugly market in plain English: schools are short on in‑house evaluators. School psychologists are overloaded and districts often lack the capacity to run full diagnostic assessments. Enter the private market. Independent clinics advertise full neuropsychological batteries that can cost into the thousands; families report paying “up to $10,000” when they want the paperwork that testing agencies now demand. Wealthier parents can buy fast appointments and thorough reports. Less well‑off families are left waiting — or not getting tests at all. That gap explains why accommodation approvals cluster in affluent districts and why critics cry “gaming the system.” To be fair, some of the rise comes from more diagnoses and real increases in anxiety and attention disorders. But the price tag on private evaluations makes the trend look too much like a pay‑to‑play version of special education.
Why fairness and accountability matter
This is a fairness problem and a policy failure. If the path to extra test time runs through a pricey private evaluation, the college pipeline tilts toward families with money. Colleges and testing agencies say they want to protect legitimate accommodations and guard against fraud. Disability advocates rightly warn that rushing to assume abuse would hurt students who need help. Yet the system should not reward those who can buy paperwork. The legal landscape has changed how schools and families fight over accommodations, and formal documentation is now crucial — which only increases demand for paid evaluations.
Common‑sense fixes that don’t punish the genuinely disabled
There are clear, practical steps that protect students and restore fairness. First, increase public capacity: fund and prioritize school psychologists and in‑district assessments so families don’t have to pay a premium for basic documentation. Second, tighten and clarify standards for national testing accommodations, with better audits and clearer record checks so the process is less vulnerable to abuse. Third, target help to underserved areas so accommodation rates don’t track wealth. These are not radical ideas — they’re accountability and common sense. If we care about kids who truly need help, and about the principle that a national test should measure ability, not bank accounts, then the country must fix the system that turned needy families into customers and wealthy ones into advantaged shoppers.
