AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC. et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.

Filing 70

LARGE ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT(S) Index of Consolidated Exhibits In Support of Public.Resource.Org's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. #69 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction filed by PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2 [Sealed], #3 Exhibit 3 [Sealed], #4 Exhibit 4 [Sealed], #5 Exhibit 5 [Sealed], #6 Exhibit 6 [Sealed], #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8 [Sealed], #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11 [Sealed], #12 Exhibit 12 [Sealed], #13 Exhibit 13 [Sealed], #14 Exhibit 14 [Sealed], #15 Exhibit 15 [Sealed], #16 Exhibit 17 [Sealed], #17 Exhibit 18 [Sealed], #18 Exhibit 19 [Sealed], #19 Exhibit 20 [Sealed], #20 Exhibit 21 [Sealed], #21 Exhibit 22 [Sealed], #22 Exhibit 23 [Sealed], #23 Exhibit 24 [Sealed], #24 Exhibit 25 [Sealed], #25 Exhibit 26 [Sealed], #26 Exhibit 27 [Sealed], #27 Exhibit 28 [Sealed], #28 Exhibit 29 [Sealed], #29 Exhibit 30 [Sealed], #30 Exhibit 31, #31 Exhibit 32 [Sealed], #32 Exhibit 33 [Sealed], #33 Exhibit 34 [Sealed], #34 Exhibit 35, #35 Exhibit 36, #36 Exhibit 37, #37 Exhibit 38 [Sealed], #38 Exhibit 39, #39 Exhibit 40, #40 Exhibit 41 [Sealed], #41 Exhibit 42 [Sealed], #42 Exhibit 43 [Sealed], #43 Exhibit 44, #44 Exhibit 45, #45 Exhibit 46, #46 Exhibit 47, #47 Exhibit 48, #48 Exhibit 49, #49 Exhibit 50 [Sealed], #50 Exhibit 51, #51 Exhibit 52, #52 Exhibit 53, #53 Exhibit 54, #54 Exhibit 55, #55 Exhibit 56, #56 Exhibit 57, #57 Exhibit 58, #58 Exhibit 59, #59 Exhibit 60, #60 Exhibit 61, #61 Exhibit 62, #62 Exhibit 63, #63 Exhibit 64 [Sealed], #64 Exhibit 65, #65 Exhibit 66, #66 Exhibit 67, #67 Exhibit 68, #68 Exhibit 69, #69 Exhibit 70, #70 Exhibit 71, #71 Exhibit 72, #72 Exhibit 73, #73 Exhibit 74)(Bridges, Andrew)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 52 OCR Issues Draft Guide on Disparate Impact in Educational Testing TIP October 1999 Home | A Search by Keyword(s) MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS SERVICES PUBLICATIONS JOBS RESOURCES FOUNDATION PARTNE OCR Issues Draft Guide on Disparate Impact in Educational Testing Wayne Camara The College Board What is I-O? Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology is the scientific study of the workplace. Rigor and methods of psychology are applied to issues of critical relevance to business, including talent management, coaching, assessment, selection, training, organizational development, performance, and work-life balance.  Find an I-O Job  I-O Graduate Programs  SIOP Social Media     The Guide may have limited direct impact on I-O psychologists, unless they are involved in ed However, the Guide may be of interest for other reasons, since it interprets and applies both l employment arena and professional testing standards to issues of disparate impact in ways th "overreaching" or incorrect. Test publishers, APA, and other educational institutions objected to the proposed timing of the agreed to revise the current document with plans for a fall publication. OCR has stated the Gu new federal guidelines or professional standards, but rather will provide a meaningful interpre tests in education. A number of national media outlets (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chronicle of Higher Education) have run stories on the guidelines and op-ed pieces that have emphasis on disparate impact being the sole determination of whether or not a test should be The Guide cites specific wording from the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testin 40 occasions, leading APA, AERA, and NCME to formally request that OCR delay revision of has been revised and published (sometime around December 1999). Several organizations h comments on the OCR Guide. My.SIOP Community   In May, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) released a draft Resource Discrimination in High Stakes Testing" that sought to provide an overview of federal standards principles that should guide the use of tests for making high stakes educational decisions (e.g special educational referrals, promotion, graduation, and scholarship awards). This Resource development for several years according to OCR, but educational groups and test publishers working days before it was originally scheduled for release.   The Guide attempts to apply Title VII law, EEOC Guidelines, and professional standards that a to educational test use. It cites several Supreme Court and lower courts decisions concerning or transports decisions and standards to education. Major concerns addressed by educationa summarized in comments submitted by the College Board (Camara, 6/21/1999): First, the Resource Guide focuses exclusively on disparate impact resulting from tests (or diff ignores the level of validity and utility offered by a test. Disparate impact cannot be considere must be evaluated in terms of the overall validity and utility of inferences associated with the p Resource Guide clearly elevates any measure, irrespective of validity, cost, or burden to the e lower disparate outcomes above any test having greater disparate outcomes. We believe this precedent that has no legal or professional justification and the Guide will have a chilling effec educational tests. Second, the Resource Guide offers no guidance on what level of disparate impact would resu there be substantial statistical disparities or would any disparate outcome result in an investig http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/tipocto99/22Camara.aspx[1/20/2016 4:16:54 PM] OCR Issues Draft Guide on Disparate Impact in Educational Testing TIP October 1999 should not be the primary statistical analysis used to determine if and when an alternative me A consistent pattern of ethnic and racial disparities has been found across a variety of standa National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the National Educational Longitud educational measures used for high-stakes decisions, such as high school grades, class rank quality and rigor of courses completed, as well as educational outcomes (e.g., college grades (Camara and Schmidt, under review). Disparities in test results reflect similar differences in ot (e.g., job performance, college achievement, and grades) and may be indicative of earlier diff learn and educational opportunities, not test bias or flaws with the test. Third, professional and technical standards do not define tests so narrowly that they exclude assessments that are both used daily to make high-stakes decisions about individual students have similar levels of disparate impact against protected groups. Specifically, the Test Standa standardized ability (aptitude and achievement) instruments, diagnostic and evaluative device personality inventories, and projective instrumentsa more appropriate choice among assessm use will be facilitated if there is a reasonable comparability in the kinds of information availabl three broad categories of test instruments are covered [emphasis added]: constructed perfor and to a lesser extent, structured behavioral samples (pages, 3_4)." Related to this comment Resource Guide be renamed to put added emphasis on Measures Used in Making High-Stak Uniform Guidelines and Employment Selection Procedures), rather than focus exclusively on decision-making process, testing. Fourth, we applaud OCR's deference to the Test Standards. However, the Resource Guide im professional standards can be applied in a rigid manner in evaluating tests. The Test Standar rigid checklist approach, noting that specific circumstances affect the relevance of standards must be applied in evaluating tests. Professional practice and standards are typically construe other measures need not meet all standards to be appropriately used within the bounds of pro (Richardson, 729 F. Supp. At 821, 823). In addition, the three sponsoring educational associa the Standards, which date back to 1985. We strongly endorse the recommendations from AP asking that issuance of this Resource Guide be deferred until after publication and dissemina Standards and requesting a standard 90-day review period for any subsequent drafts of this d publication of the revised Test Standards. Fifth, we would ask OCR to ensure that colleges and universities, school districts, and state e an opportunity to review and comment on this proposed Resource Guide. The Resource Guid disseminated or reviewed by colleges and secondary schools. These are the very organizatio affected by the Resource Guide once it is issued and it seems appropriate that they be given comment on the inferences and proposed standards. Sixth, the distinction the Resource Guide makes between tests and other assessment device establishing a much lower technical, professional, and legal standard for more subjective ass applications, grades and GPA, recommendations, ratings or evaluations of student work and experiences and honors, community service and involvement, samples of student work). In W and Trust, 487 U.S. 977, the American Psychological Association submitted an amicus curiae argued there is no professional or scientific justification to treat subjective and objective devic validation requirements. In fact, not imposing essentially the same legal and technical standa and devices used in high-stakes individual decisions would provide a sanctioned and covert m APA further argued that subjective procedures (in that case used for employment) are "amen psychometric scrutiny" as objective procedures, citing the Test Standards which address inte (Camara, 1996). In deciding Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977, all eight of t O'Connor's opinion holding that the adverse impact theory can be used in cases involving sub was concerned that an employer could combine an objective criteria (such as a test or diplom (such as interviews or ratings) and easily insulate itself from the Griggs test. O'Connor noted making systems could have "precisely the same effects as a system pervaded by impermissib (Opinion at 4926). Seventh, professional and legal standards do not provide any support for OCR's distinctions b and other measures. We agree with comments to an earlier draft of this Resource Guide subm Testing and Assessment (Shavelson, June 10, 1996), stating that "OCR's inquiry is not to pro validity of inferences and decisions based on tests, but rather to determine whether the entire a part provides students a fair and equal opportunity to learn...." The Resource Guide ignores even if they contribute more to disparate outcomes. In fact, high school courses, judgments a http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/tipocto99/22Camara.aspx[1/20/2016 4:16:54 PM] OCR Issues Draft Guide on Disparate Impact in Educational Testing TIP October 1999 high school curriculum," grades, and rank may also contribute more to disparate outcomes, th testing, if an institution places substantially greater weight on these factors. For example, if te one of several factors in admissions, then there is no guarantee those disparate outcomes wi eliminated. In requiring tests to meet an exceptionally higher standard than other measures (G student work, high school rank, past experience, and opportunities), the Resource Guide will of valid and objective standardized tests used by educational institutions, states, and school d educational institutions may opt to employ less valid and less objective methods for high-stak are not addressed in this Resource Guide. Eighth, the Resource Guide also sanctions the use of the Uniform Guidelines on Employment resource in educational testing. As the Resource Guide acknowledges in a footnote, there are differences between educational and employment testing that we believe undermines any atte in educational settings. The Uniform Guidelines were never developed with application to edu organizations did not have an opportunity to comment on extensions of the principles to educ Guidelines are over 25 years old and do not reflect current scientific principles of measureme practice. The Uniform Guidelines are outdated and do not conform to the Testing Standards ( their consideration of validity (as accomplished by adopting one of three distinct types of valid (this is virtually ignored in the Guidelines, but is accepted professional practice), differential p as well as several other areas (APA, 1985). The Uniform Guidelines may provide a framewor guidelines addressing test use, but they should not be viewed as a substantive resource in ed Ninth, statistical analyses should be based on the pool of qualified applicants, not a general p not addressed in the Resource Guide. Tenth, this Resource Guide implies that once disparate impact is established that the burden educational institution to demonstrate both the educational necessity of the test and then to d alternative exists throughout the process. This legal interpretation is incorrect. Other sections of the Resource Guide viewed as problematic include wording implying that se studies are required for each school; that tests can only be used for purposes they were origi than for uses where sufficient validation evidence exist); and that there is a unique methodolo when they are to be used as the sole criteria. On June 18th, the House held a hearing on the OCR Guide and department officials noted tha recirculate the current draft to groups who have already submitted comments on the current d submit a revised Guide to the National Academy of Sciences Board of Testing and Assessme Thereafter, they anticipate making a final draft available for public review this fall. They will pu and will have the revised Guide posted on their web (Coleman, June 21, 1999, personal corre References: American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and Nation in Education (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: A Association. American Psychological Association (1985). Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Develop a Un Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association (1987). Amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioner. W and Trust. Washington, DC: Author. Camara, W. (1996). Fairness and public policy in employment testing: Influences from a profe Barrett (Ed.), Fair employment strategies in human resource management. Westport, CT: Qu Camara, W. and Schmidt, A. (Under Review). Social stratification and group differences in sta educational indicators. Shavelson, R. (June 10, 1996). Correspondence to Norma Cantu. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 29, 1988). http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/tipocto99/22Camara.aspx[1/20/2016 4:16:54 PM] OCR Issues Draft Guide on Disparate Impact in Educational Testing TIP October 1999 October 1999 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home       © 2016 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. All Rights Reserved   Hit Counter 3687 http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/tipocto99/22Camara.aspx[1/20/2016 4:16:54 PM] Home  | Privacy Policy  | Sitem

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?