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