The Briefcase
Disability Rights Advocates' Semi-Annual Newsletter
Disability Rights Advocates' Semi-Annual Newsletter
Fall 2005 Issue
At all levels of education, students with learning disabilities are affected by the consequences of high-stakes testing. Standardized testing has become the centerpiece of “accountability” in K-12 public education. Institutions of higher education similarly rely on national exams, such as the ACT, SAT, MCAT and LSAT, as a significant key for admittance. As these trends continue, students with learning disabilities must overcome the barriers these tests create to achieve academic success.
Learning disabilities are disorders affecting the way in which people absorb and express information. People with learning disabilities are as intelligent as others, but need accommodations in order to read, write or process information. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as state civil rights laws, considers “learning” a key life activity, thus people with learning disabilities are protected and guaranteed accommodations to prevent unlawful discrimination on the basis of their disabilities.
In just a few short years, Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), with the support and help of others in the learning disability community, has advocated to ensure full and fair accessibility under the law for these students. In this spirit, the Testing Access Project was created to to investigate and advocate for the removal of barriers faced by students with learning disabilities.
Federal civil rights statutes provide the foundation for challenging how high-stakes exams are administered. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the federal special education law that protects students with disabilities and special needs in public elementary and high schools. The IDEA statute, along with the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, requires that students with learning disabilities be guaranteed equal access to education at all levels.
For example, federal law requires that all students with learning disabilities be provided with “reasonable accommodations” to help avoid discrimination or unfair treatment on the basis of disability. These accommodations when provided on high-stakes tests generally include the same tools students use everyday in the classroom. When allowed to use accommodations, students are then able to demonstrate their skills and knowledge, not merely the effect of their disability.
High school “exit exams” are an accountability fad sweeping the nation with serious consequences for students with special needs. By 2012, 27 states will require all diploma-track high school students to pass their state’s mandatory exit exam to receive their diploma. Although no court has overturned the overall validity of these tests, DRA seeks to ensure that students with learning disabilities have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their substantive knowledge when subjected to these tests.
In 2001, DRA challenged the State of California’s high school exit exam, CAHSEE, as an invalid and discriminatory exam as applied to students with disabilities. The plaintiffs in Chapman v. California Department of Education are all California students with disabilities who were required to take the CAHSEE to receive their high school diploma without the accommodations recommended in their Individualized Education Programs (IEP), even though all other graduation requirements had been satisfied.
In 2002, DRA succeeded in obtaining an injunction requiring that the State permit students to take the Exam with the accommodations documented in their IEP plans. However, the Exam still poses a barrier to thousands of students with learning disabilities because they have not been adequately prepared for the Exam and need an alternative form of assessment other than a standardized test.
In response to the 2005 interim settlement, State Senator Gloria Romero sponsored Senate Bill 586 in the California Assembly, which would have allowed thousands of California students with disabilities in the high school Classes of 2006 and 2007 who met all other graduation requirements to graduate regardless of whether they passed the CAHSEE. However, on October 8, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 586, forcing DRA to return to court to to seek an exemption for the Class of 2006 from the CAHSEE as a graduation requirement. DRA is currently waiting for this issue to be resolved by the court.
If you would like to learn more about DRA’s past learning disability cases, order or download Do No Harm, DRA’s 2001 report on the struggle for equal rights of students with learning disabilities.
National high-stakes tests are also subject to certain equal access requirements. These tests include the SAT and ACT, which are used for undergraduate admissions, as well as the GRE, MCAT, and the LSAT. Currently, DRA is challenging the Association of American Medical Colleges’ (AAMC) discriminatory practice of arbitrarily denying applications for accommodations. In Turner v. Association of American Medical Colleges, four medical school applicants filed a class action lawsuit under California laws protecting people with disabilities. The case is currently being litigated, and so far DRA has succeeded in defeating three motions to dismiss and in certifying the case as a state-wide class action.
In the 1997 Guckenberger v. Boston University class action lawsuit, students with learning disabilities, represented by DRA and supported by the LD Access Foundation, challenged discriminatory disability documentation requirements at Boston University (BU) that required new testing for students’ learning disabilities every three years. Additionally, the provost of the University, widely known as an outspoken opponent of rights for students with learning disabilities, fired the disability resources staff and put himself in charge of personally reviewing, and routinely denying, all requests for classroom accommodations. DRA successfully litigated this case to trial, winning substantial reforms to the BU accommodations process and increased access to the educational experience.
As a result of a lawsuit filed by DRA, A.S.K. v. Oregon, the State of Oregon took extensive steps to modify its high-stakes testing system to ensure that the tests did not discriminate against students with learning disabilities. This settlement was based on the findings of an expert panel that was convened in 2000, and charged with reviewing Oregon's testing system as it relates to students with learning disabilities. The Panel's recommendations affected policies and procedures that ensure students with learning desabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in the assessment system.
DRA’s 2001 publication Do No Harm includes the Panel’s Executive Summary of findings and recommendations.
In 2001, DRA teamed up with the International Dyslexia Association to reach a settlement with the Educational Testing Service (ETS), in Breimhorst v. ETS, to end the discriminatory practice of “flagging” students with disabilities who use accommodations on ETS examinations. The ETS exams include the national high-stakes GRE and GMAT. Also, as part of this case, a Blue Ribbon Panel of disability and testing experts similarly concluded “flagging” was inappropriate on the SAT, the “Big Test” for undergraduate admissions owned by the College Board and administered by ETS. Pursuant to this settlement, ETS ended “flagging” on the SAT as well.
In August 2004, DRA settled a lawsuit against the Alaska Commissioner, the Alaska State Board of Education & Early Development, and the Anchorage School District in Noon v. Alaska. This case charged that the Alaska High School Graduation Qualifying Examination (HSGQE) violated various federal and state laws relating to students with disabilities. DRA successfully reached a comprehensive settlement resulting in the most generous accommodations policy of its kind in the country, as well as a true alternative assessment for students who cannot access standardized tests. Moreover, DRA’s intervention saved the diplomas of two-thirds of all special needs students in Alaska's Class of 2004.
DRA is currently investigating complaints of persons with documented learning disabilities denied accommodations on high-stakes tests. Such high-stakes tests include state examinations (like high school "exit exams"), and college or post-graduate admissions tests and state licensing exams.
Please contact us at LDed@dralegal.org if you are a student who:
(1) has a documented learning disability or disabilities and
(2) has been denied accommodations on a major standardized test, such as a mandatory high school exit exam, an admissions test (SAT, ACT , MCAT , GRE, etc.), or a professional licensing exam (USMLE, a state bar exam, etc.).
