BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2122|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2122
Author: Lara (D)
Amended: 8/29/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-2, 6/20/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian,
Vargas
NOES: Blakeslee, Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 65-6, 4/19/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Law School Admission Test: accommodations
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires the test sponsor of the Law
School Admission Test (LSAT) to provide testing
accommodations to a disabled test subject, as specified.
This bill prohibits that test sponsor from notifying a test
score recipient that the score of any test subject was
obtained by a subject who received an accommodation, and
prohibits the test sponsor of the LSAT from withholding any
information that would lead a test score recipient to
deduce that a score was earned by a subject who received an
accommodation.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/29/12 strike a reference to
the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) and instead
CONTINUED
AB 2122
Page
2
reference the test sponsor of the LSAT, which is consistent
with all other provisions of this bill.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/24/12 (1) delete the
requirement that the test sponsor provide accommodations,
and instead require the test sponsor to give considerable
weight to documentation of past modifications,
accommodations or auxiliary aids or services the test
subject received in similar testing situations; (2)
prohibit the LSAC from withholding any information that
would lead a test score recipient to deduce that a score
was earned by a subject who received an accommodation.
This amendment may seem counter-intuitive, but is meant to
prevent situations where the test sponsor forwards to law
schools the names of the top candidates while excluding
students who received accommodations; and (3) state that
some provisions of this bill do not constitute a change in
existing law, but are declaratory of existing law. The
amendments state that this bill does not provide greater
protections to people with disabilities than those provided
by the Civil Code.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Defines "test sponsor" as any individual, partnership,
corporation, association, company, firm, institution,
society, trust, or joint stock company which develops,
sponsors, or administers standardized tests. (Education
Code (ED) Section 99151)
2. Establishes various requirements and procedures for test
sponsors to follow in administering standardized tests
for admission to, or placement in, postsecondary
educational institutions, such as reporting data to the
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (ED
Section 99152-99164)
3. Provides that any test sponsor who intentionally
violates the requirements or procedures of administering
standardized tests is subject to a civil penalty of up
to $750 per violation. (ED Section 99163)
CONTINUED
AB 2122
Page
3
Existing federal law requires entities that offer
examinations relating to applications for postsecondary
education to offer examinations in a place and manner
accessible to persons with disabilities, including
providing modifications to the examination and appropriate
auxiliary aids or services for persons with disabilities to
assure that the examination is selected and administered to
best ensure that the examination results accurately reflect
the individual's aptitude or achievement level. Test
sponsors are authorized to request appropriate
documentation related to requests for testing
accommodations, modifications or auxiliary aids.
Federal and state laws define a disability as a mental or
physical disorder or condition that limits a major life
activity.
Enforcement of federal laws and regulations governing
testing accommodations is largely complaint-driven and
involves multiple agencies. While the Department of
Justice has overall responsibility for enforcing compliance
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Department
of Education and Department of Health and Human Services
have enforcement responsibilities under the Rehabilitation
Act for testing companies that receive federal financial
assistance from those agencies.
The test sponsor of the LSAT is the LSAC.
This bill requires the test sponsor of the LSAT to provide
testing accommodations, a timely appeals process and
prohibits the flagging of test scores obtained using
accommodations. Specifically, this bill:
1. Requires the test sponsor of the LSAT to provide testing
accommodations to a test subject with a disability who
makes a timely request to ensure that the LSAT
accurately reflects the aptitude, achievement levels, or
other factors that the test purports to measure and does
not reflect the test subject's disability.
2. Requires the test sponsor to provide accommodations to a
test subject who has received formal testing
accommodations from a postsecondary educational
CONTINUED
AB 2122
Page
4
institution for a disability.
3. Prohibits the test sponsor from notifying a test score
recipient (law schools) that the score of any test
subject was obtained by a person who received
accommodations.
4. Requires the process for determining whether to grant an
accommodation pursuant to #1 to be made public, and the
decision to be conveyed to the requester within a
reasonable amount of time.
5. Requires the test sponsor, if it denies a request for
accommodation, to provide to the requestor the reasons
for the denial in writing.
6. Requires the test sponsor to establish a timely appeals
process for a test taker who has been denied an
accommodation request. The test sponsor must clearly
post on the LSAT website information regarding refund
policies for people whose requests for accommodation are
denied.
7. Provides that this bill is not to be construed to limit
or replace any other right or remedy that exists under
state or federal law.
Comments
Current practice . There are numerous test sponsors
conducting testing services in California. While all test
sponsors have established testing accommodations
procedures, as required by the federal 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, including:
1. Educational Testing Service (ETS), which administers the
Graduate Record Examinations, requires test subjects to
submit requests for accommodations, including current
documentation from a qualified professional supporting
each testing accommodation requested, by the specified
registration deadline. Recognizing the costs associated
CONTINUED
AB 2122
Page
5
with obtaining current documentation, ETS grants basic
accommodations to applicants with long-standing learning
disabilities, such as time-and-a-half and rest breaks,
without requiring diagnostic reevaluation.
2. College Board, which administers the Scholastic
Aptitude/Assessment Test, requires accommodation
requests to be approved by College Board's Services for
Students with Disabilities. Documentation must be
provided showing that the student has a disability, that
the disability causes a functional limitation that
affects participation in tests, and that the requested
accommodations are appropriate. Students generally work
through their high school disability services office to
receive accommodations from College Board.
3. The LSAC, which administers the LSAT, requires
applicants seeking accommodations to first register to
take the examination and then to complete and submit for
review an extensive Accommodations Request Packet. The
Accommodations Request Packet requires, among other
items, copies of accommodations provided for prior
related testing and coursework and an Evaluator Form
completed by a qualified professional verifying the
disability and need for accommodations. LSAC indicates
initial responses to requests for accommodations occur
within 14 days of receipt. However, depending on the
nature of the request and documentation submitted, as
well as timing, LSAC indicates the process for approval
may take longer.
Testing accommodations . This bill requires the LSAT test
sponsor to provide accommodations to people who received
formal testing accommodations from a postsecondary
educational institution. According to the author's office,
an individual may have a well-documented history of
accommodations, yet LSAC will only consider prior
postsecondary testing accommodations, among other factors.
The 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.
While this bill does not specify what type of documentation
CONTINUED
AB 2122
Page
6
a person who received accommodations from a postsecondary
educational institution must provide to the LSAC,
registration procedures for the Graduate Records
Examination, the Test of English as a Foreign Language and
Praxis Series indicate that a person requesting
accommodations that were provided by a postsecondary
educational institution may submit a Certification of
Eligibility that appears to be less extensive than the
documentation required by LSAC.
Flagging test scores . This bill prohibits the LSAC from
notifying test score recipients (law schools) if a person
received testing accommodations, a practice commonly
referred to as "flagging" a score. The author's office
contends that there is no way to determine the
comparability of the scores earned under non-standard
conditions (when extra time is given) and standard
conditions. However, the 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. Further,
LSAC maintains that it has an obligation to provide
accurate score-interpretation information to law schools.
ETS and College Board apparently no longer flag scores of
people who took exams with accommodations due to
litigation.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/30/12)
American Bar Association
Bar Association of San Francisco
California Association for Postsecondary Education and
Disability
Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder
Disability Rights California
Edge Foundation
Learning Disabilities Association of California
National Association of Law Students with Disabilities
Project Eye to Eye
CONTINUED
AB 2122
Page
7
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/30/12)
Law School Admission Council
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "Unlike
the Law School Admission Test, students requesting
accommodations for high stakes exams such as the Graduate
Record Examinations, which is sponsored by the Educational
Testing Service, can easily submit a completed
Certification of Eligibility in lieu of disability
documentation. Clearly, the Law School Admission Council's
(LSAC) stringent documentation policies create a gap
between individuals who can afford the expensive assessment
and those who cannot. Additionally, under LSAC's policies,
when a student obtains extra time based on a cognitive or
physical disability, his or her score is identified and a
letter is sent to law schools notifying that an
accommodation was granted and advising that the score
should be interpreted with great sensitivity. This
practice is referred to as 'flagging' and it creates a
chilling effect that discourages individuals from
requesting testing accommodations."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The opponents argue, "If
adopted, AB 2122 would unnecessarily regulate the process
that LSAC uses in providing reasonable accommodations on
the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) for test-takers with
documented disabilities. LSAC's process for reviewing and
granting accommodation requests already is subject to Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, with which LSAC
is compliant. Further, AB 2122 is unnecessary because it
would require processes in which LSAC already engages. AB
2122 appears to be a solution in search of a problem."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 65-6, 4/19/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bill
Berryhill, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley,
Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter,
Chesbro, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong,
Fuentes, Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon,
Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Hayashi, Roger
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Lara,
CONTINUED
AB 2122
Page
8
Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell,
Monning, Nestande, Nielsen, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel
P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada
NOES: Conway, Donnelly, Jones, Knight, Norby, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Beall, Block, Cedillo, Fletcher,
Furutani, Harkey, Mansoor, Morrell, John A. P�rez
PQ:k 8/30/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED