TESTING TITLE VII’S PATIENCE? THE NEED FOR BETTER REMEDIES WHEN STATE “TEACHER TESTING” REQUIREMENTS HAVE A DISPARATE IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY POPULATIONS

Sep 4, 2026

Uploaded by James

Analyzes how state “teacher testing” requirements, adopted under education accountability trends, create disparate employment impacts for minority populations despite the stated goal of ensuring teacher competence. Discusses persistent education reform shortcomings and the expansion of standardized testing as a condition of employment, noting lower minority passing rates across reviewed state tests. Argues that Title VII remedies may need to be better tailored to address discriminatory effects on employment opportunities.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages29

Reading Time1 h 13 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Accountability failures and high-stakes testing

Teacher testing requirements as employment conditions

Disparate impact on minority applicants

TESTING TITLE VII’S PATIENCE? THE NEED FOR BETTER REMEDIES WHEN STATE“TEACHER TESTING” REQUIREMENTS HAVE A DISPARATE IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY POPULATIONS I. INTRODUCTION The failures of education reform efforts have led to increased demands for accountability from schools, teachers, and students.1 Unfortunately, while every new federal education bill comes with “lofty statements, more programs and higher spending,”2 there has been no corresponding increase in achievement during the past forty years.3 The demands for accountability 1. See Mary Lord, Teaching America, U. S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Jan. 28/Feb. 4, 2002, at 28, 28-29 (discussing various accountability measures in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002), the most recent federal education legislation, including annual school “report cards” to enable parents to compare their child’s performance against that of students in similar schools and annual testing of students in grades three through eight in both reading and math); Mary Alice Barksdale-Ladd & Karen F. Thomas, What’s At Stake in High-Stakes Testing: Teachers and Parents Speak Out, 51 J. TCHR. EDUC. 384, 384 (2000) (stating that publication of NATIONAL COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION , A NATION AT RISK ( 1983), which compared the decline in the quality of education to unilateral educational disarmament, has been the impetus of a“focused march” toward accountability and high-stakes testing); Chris E. Vance, Comment, Teacher Competency Testing: “Decertication ” and the Federal Constitution and Title VII, 37 EMORY L.J. 1077, 1077 ( 1988) (stating that the American public has demanded educational accountability because of the widely publicized inadequacies of public education); Hagit Elul, Note, Making the Grade, Public Education Reform: The Use of Standardized Testing to Retain Students and Deny Diplomas, 30 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 495, 496 ( 1999) (noting that student accountability programs rely on“high-stakes testing,”with test results used to determine important educational decisions, grade promotion, and diploma denial) . 2. Krista Kafer, Education Reform: Half a Loaf, WASH. TIMES, Jan. 15, 2002, at A12 . For example, in 1974, immediately after signing a highly touted bipartisan education reform bill, President Gerald Ford announced, “Today, and for generations to come, America will benefit from this law, which expresses our national commitment to quality education for all children.” Id. In 1978, President Carter echoed the sentiment, stating that with the new education bill he had signed,“we have together taken an historic step in the evolution of the federal role in education.” Id. Similarly, Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy announced that the education reform package of 1994 was “the most important reauthorization in this legislation’s history.” Id. Eight years later, President George W. Bush hailed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, supra note 1, as “the most important piece of legislation most of us will ever work on.”Kafer, supra, at A12. Massive expenditures have accompanied these“lofty statements.” See Eric A. Hanushek & Margaret E. Raymond, The Confusing World of Educational Accountability, 54 NAT ’L TAX J. 365, 367 (2001) (stating that “real spending per student has more than tripled between 1960 and 1995”) . 3. Kafer, supra note 2. Despite the long-running history of efforts to improve education, more than half of all poor children still score below “basic” on the National Assessment of Education 562 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY [VOL. 81:561 have prompted more than forty state governments to require at least some of their teachers to pass a standardized test as a condition of their employment.4 States use teacher tests to measure an individual’s basic skills, general knowledge, content knowledge, and knowledge of teaching strategies.5 The tests are designed to determine which teachers “are at least mi

FAQs

What problem does the document identify with education accountability and testing?

It argues that decades of accountability efforts and increased testing spending have not produced corresponding achievement gains, while still driving new requirements for standardized assessments.

How do state teacher testing requirements affect employment opportunities?

States use tests to determine minimally competent teaching skills, but the emphasis on standardized testing results in the exclusion of a disproportionate number of minority applicants from the teacher supply.

What finding supports the claim of disparate impact?

A commissioned study found that minority candidates had lower passing rates than non-minority candidates on all state teacher tests reviewed.

Sep 4, 2026

Uploaded by James