Chapter 20: Testing and the Law

Question 1

Laws Governing Use of Tests

Answer 1

-Federal control of spending- states “do it (the government’s) way or (the government) won’t pay.”
-14th amendment to constitution- guarantees citizens equal protection under law
-Civil Rights Act of 1964
+Title VII- created Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

Question 2

EEOC

Answer 2

-“Provides clear regulations for using assessment devices for employee selection”
-Define fair employee selection procedures
-Established psychometric minimums
-Can’t discriminate against race, age, gender, disabilities
+Sexual harassment added in 1980
+Sexual orientation added in 1994

Question 3

Truth-in-Testing Laws

Answer 3

ETS vs. NYPIRG (1979)
Law requires testing companies to:
-Disclose all studies on test validity
-Disclose what test scores mean and how calculated
-Provide copy of test questions, correct answers, and students answers (MAY DECREASE VALUE OF TESTS)

Question 4

Segregation Cases (I)

Answer 4

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

• Separate but equal ruling (school segregation okay)
• But school quality must be equal

Brown v. Board of Education (1950)

• Overturns Plessy v. Fergusion
• Allows only nonsegregated school facilities
• Effective? 40% of AA and Hispanic students go to 90% minority schools

Stell v. Savannah-Chatham BOE (1963)
-Segregation Okay because blacks have lower IQ test scores

Question 5

Segregation Cases (II)

Answer 5

Hobson v. Hansen (1967)

• Genetic equality?/Fairness
• Examined test validity

Diana v. State Board of Education (1970)

• Mexican and Chinese American students; poor WISC performance, only when tested in English
• Ruled: testing in primary language; Ruled: cultural item content

Larry P. v. Wilson Riles (1979)

• Discontinue use of objective IQ tests; “they perpetuate segregation”
• Ruling allows subjective judgments

Question 6

Affirmative Action Cases (I)

Answer 6

Premise: Under representation helps admission chances

• Schools want to promote diversity
• Usually concerns race/ethnicity and gender

Regents of University of California v. Bakke

• Non-minority discrimination -> higher MCAT cutoff
• Ruled: No different cutoff scores by race, but race could be considered

University of California in San Diego Cases

• Many Asian Americans denied admission with no extra consideration (higher GPA/SAT scores than blacks and latinos)
• Ended affirmative action programs

Question 7

Affirmative Action Cases (II)

Answer 7

Grutler v. Bollinger (2003)

• Grutler: white female law student
• Ruled: UM keeps Law School policy (overturned in 2006) *Cannot consider race for law school admission

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

• Gratz: Undergraduate Student
• Ruled: Race could be considered, but not quantified, for undergrads

Question 8

Research of Affirmative Action (AA)

Answer 8

• Policies undermine self-confidence

- Influence how majority perceives the minority, less stigma if employees think applicants evaluated “on merit”