Court to Reconsider Claim That Teacher Skills Test Is Biased

A federal appeals court has agreed to reconsider claims by minority educators that California’s teacher-qualifying test is discriminatory.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Monday that a majority of its judges voted to set aside a panel’s 2-1 ruling upholding CBEST, and order a new hearing before an 11-judge panel.

The California Basic Educational Skills Test has been required by state law for teaching, counseling and administrative credentials since 1983.

It consists of multiple-choice questions in reading comprehension and mathematics and two essays to measure writing skills. It is given six times a year and can be repeated indefinitely.

The most recent state figures showed that 100,000 people a year took the test, 70% passed on their first try and 82% to 85% passed eventually.

But there were significant differences among ethnic groups, particularly in first-time passage rates: 80% for whites, 60% for Asians, 47% for Hispanics and 37% for blacks.

The state says the test is set at an eighth- to tenth-grade level and screens out only the unqualified.

Organizations of Latino, black and Asian educators contend that there was no proven connection between CBEST and teaching skills, and that teachers should be judged on their classroom performance.

Upholding the test guarantees that qualified teachers will be arbitrarily excluded and that the state’s teaching corps will remain racially skewed, argued John Affeldt, a lawyer for the minority educators.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick of San Francisco upheld CBEST after a nonjury trial in 1996. He said the test had an adverse impact on minorities but measured essential job skills better than other alternatives.

In last year’s ruling, the appeals court panel agreed with Orrick but also said the test wouldn’t violate federal law even if it discriminated against minorities.

The panel majority said federal civil rights laws don’t cover statewide teacher-licensing tests. Affeldt contended that the law applies not only to employers but also to “anyone who interferes with employment relationships in a discriminatory manner.”