________________________________ From: Rosalind Horowitz <Rosalind.Horowitz(a)utsa.edu&gt; Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 8:40 AM To: ILT(a)lists.sis.utsa.edu <ILT(a)lists.sis.utsa.edu&gt; Subject: Court Bars U. of California From Using ACT and SAT for Fall-2021 Admissions Dear Colleagues, In order to keep us informed of national developments, I call your attention to the announcement prepared by The Chronicle of Higher Education. This is an important statement of new legal changes in College admissions. All good wishes and blessings for 2020-2021. Rosalind https://www.chronicle.com/article/court-bars-u-of-california-from-using-a... Court Bars U. of California From Using ACT and SAT for Fall-2021 Admissions Opponents of standardized tests in admissions just won another round. A California judge on Monday granted a preliminary injunction<http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/assets/files/1489.pdf> immediately barring the University of California system from using the ACT and SAT. The injunction had been sought by plaintiffs who cited state and federal disability laws in arguing that disabled students’ access to standardized tests is “either impossible or impaired” because of disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Amid widespread school closures and an ongoing shortage of testing sites, many students who require accommodations have been unable to get them — or find suitable places to take exams. The barriers faced by students with disabilities are indisputably significantly greater than those faced by nondisabled students. In his ruling, Judge Brad Seligman of the Superior Court of California for Alameda Country concluded that the plaintiffs had made a “substantial” case that they would very likely succeed on the merits at a trial. “To be sure, Covid-19 has disrupted the testing process for many students,” Judge Seligman wrote. “But the barriers faced by students with disabilities are indisputably significantly greater than those faced by nondisabled students.” The judge’s ruling is the latest twist in the Golden State’s closely watched testing saga. In late May, the University of California’s Board of Regents voted unanimously<https://www.chronicle.com/article/golden-state-blockbuster... to phase out the ACT and SAT by 2025. Under that plan<http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/university-calif...;, the system would no longer require applicants to submit test scores, starting with the current admissions cycle. For the fall of 2023 and 2024, each campus would be “test blind,” meaning that they wouldn’t consider test scores for admission, though they could still use the scores to assess applicants’ eligibility for scholarships and the system’s statewide admissions guarantee<http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/admission-requir...;. Three UC campuses — Berkeley, Irvine, and Santa Cruz — had already adopted “test blind” policies for fall-2021 applicants. UCLA, UC-Riverside, and UC-San Diego, had planned for test-optional policies, allowing applicants to send ACT and SAT scores, or not. The rest of the campuses had yet to reach a decision. Lawyers representing a group of prospective students and nonprofit organizations in a lawsuit<http://www.chronicle.com/article/a-new-lawsuit-calls-u-of-cali... challenging UC’s testing policies filed a motion<http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/assets/files/1455.pdf> in July to prevent all the system’s campuses from considering the ACT and SAT scores for admission and scholarships. “By adopting a so-called ‘test optional’ admissions policy under which submitting an SAT or ACT score is an option for all students except those with disabilities,” the motion said, “the Regents have created an unlawful two-tiered admissions system. Under that system, students without disabilities can continue to take the tests and use their high scores to their advantage, whereas students with disabilities ... are effectively barred from testing with the accommodations they need.” In short, the lawsuit asked the court to consider the full meaning of “test optional.” Traditionally, the term has been associated with an applicant’s freedom to choose not to submit test scores that she already has. But what about disabled students who don’t have the option of submitting scores that might help their chances of admission, because they’re unable to take an exam? Lawyers for UC had argued that the plaintiffs could not show that test-optional polices would harm disabled applicants. But Judge Seligman wrote that the Americans With Disabilities Act didn’t require the plaintiffs to prove such an impact. “The question here,” he wrote, “is whether the inability of persons with disabilities to avail themselves of the test option, and thus the inability to take advantage of the ‘plus factor’ or ‘second look’ available to test takers is a denial of meaningful access to an opportunity or benefit that persons without disabilities enjoy.” His answer: Yes. In a written statement, Marci Lerner Miller of the Miller Advocacy Group, which is helping represent the plaintiffs, called the ruling “a monumental step toward removing barriers long faced by students with disabilities in higher education.” Robert A. Schaeffer, interim executive director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest), described the decision as a major “step forward” in the movement to eliminate colleges’ reliance on the ACT and SAT. “The preliminary injunction is crystal clear that there cannot be a level playing field for test-takers with disabilities,” he said in a written statement. “This ruling has national implications — the same protections under the Americans With Disability Act should apply to all test-takers across the nation.” ADVERTISEMENT In a written statement, the University of California said it it was considering further legal action: “UC respectfully disagrees with the court’s ruling. An injunction may interfere with the university’s efforts to implement an appropriate and comprehensive admissions policies and its ability to attract and enroll students of diverse backgrounds and experiences.” For now, one thing seems clear: Covid-19 will continue to intensify longstanding questions about the inequities of standardized testing that colleges cannot ignore. Sent from my iPhone