BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2122
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2122 (Lara)
As Amended March 21, 2012
Majority vote
HIGHER EDUCATION 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Block, Olsen, Achadjian, | | |
| |Brownley, Fong, Galgiani, | | |
| |Lara, Miller, Portantino | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the test sponsor of the Law School Admission
Test (LSAT) to provide reasonable accommodations to a disabled
test subject, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires that the LSAT test sponsor process for determining
whether to grant a reasonable accommodation be made public,
that the decision whether or not to approve a request to be
conveyed to the requester within a reasonable amount of time
and that the reasons for denial be stated if the request is
not approved.
2)Requires the test sponsor of the LSAT to establish a timely
appeals process for a test subject who has been denied an
accommodation request.
3)Requires the test sponsor of the LSAT to provide
accommodations to a test subject who has received formal
testing accommodations from a postsecondary educational
institution.
4)Prohibits the test sponsor of the LSAT from notifying a test
score recipient that the score of any test subject was
obtained by a test subject who received accommodations.
5)Requires the test sponsor of the LSAT to clearly post on their
Web site information regarding refund policies for individuals
whose requests for accommodations are denied.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill has been keyed non-fiscal by
the Legislative Counsel.
AB 2122
Page 2
COMMENTS :
Background. There are numerous test sponsors conducting testing
services in California. While all test sponsors have
established testing accommodations procedures, as required by
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the process for test
subjects to receive formal testing accommodations and the
requirements for verifying disabilities and granting
accommodations varies significantly among test sponsors.
Purpose of this bill. According to the author, unlike other
test sponsors, an LSAT applicant must provide a highly specific
diagnosis and report for the Law School Admissions Council
(LSAC) to even consider certain accommodation requests. The
author indicates that LSAC requires a private diagnosis
assessment and report that may cost over $3,000, a cost that
bars low-income individuals from access. According to the
author, this bill is designed to create greater access for
individuals with disabilities taking the LSAT by requiring,
among other provisions, LSAC to provide accommodations to an
individual who has received formal testing accommodations by a
postsecondary institution.
Testing accommodations. This bill would require LSAT test
sponsors to provide accommodations to test subjects who received
formal testing accommodations from a postsecondary educational
institution. According to the author, an individual may have a
well-documented history of accommodations, yet LSAT will only
"consider" prior postsecondary testing accommodations. LSAC
argues that no single factor should be used in determining the
need for an accommodation and that other objective and credible
evidence, in addition to prior academic use of accommodations,
should be evaluated.
Public, timely process. This bill would require the process for
LSAT test sponsors to determine whether to grant accommodations
to be public and decisions and rationale for decisions made
through this process to be conveyed to the requesting test
subject in a "reasonable amount of time." This bill would also
require the LSAT test sponsor to establish a "timely appeals
process" for a test subject who has been denied an accommodation
request.
Flagging test scores. This bill would prohibit LSAT test
AB 2122
Page 3
sponsors from notifying test score recipients if a test subject
received testing accommodations, a practice commonly referred to
as "flagging" a score. According to the author, when extra time
is given as an accommodation, LSAC marks the score report with
an asterisk and sends a letter to all recipient law schools to
notify of the accommodation, noting that there is no way to
determine the comparability of the scores earned under
"nonstandard" and "standard" conditions. The author argues that
LSAC current process of flagging is regarded as highly
stigmatizing and discriminatory by disability rights
organizations. The author notes that the Educational Testing
Service (ETS) agreed to stop the practice of flagging on all
tests effective October 2001, in response to a discrimination
lawsuit. LSAC indicates that test scores are only "flagged" if
extra time is provided as an accommodation and that evidence
demonstrates that standard and nonstandard-time scores are not
comparable. LSAC believes that it has an obligation to provide
accurate score-interpretation information and that "flagging"
test scores that received extra time is consistent with that
obligation.
Applicability to LSAT. This bill would require LSAT test
sponsors to abide by outlined provisions for providing
accommodations to test subjects, but not sponsors of other
postsecondary education related tests, many of whom do not
currently follow all of the provisions outlined in this bill.
According to the author, this bill targets LSAC as the process
for test subjects to request and obtain accommodations when
taking the LSAT creates significant barriers for persons with
disabilities.
Existing protections. Existing law specifically prohibits
discrimination based on disability and provides the Department
of Fair Housing and Employment (department) powers to
investigate, mediate and prosecute violations. The department
is currently investigating at least one discrimination complaint
against the LSAC.
Analysis Prepared by : Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
FN: 0003207
AB 2122
Page 4