State Minimum Competency Testing Programs: Legal Implications of Minimum Competency Testing: Debra P. and Beyond. Final Report

Abstract

Legal issues of minimum competency testing derive from federal and state constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions, and from common law. Constitutional provisions for equal protection, due process, and freedom of belief and privacy, are primarily federal; education provisions are state mandated. Only four court cases have directly challenged minimum competency programs: (1) Wells v Banks (Georgia); (2) Hernandez v Board of Education, Lynwood Unified School District, CA; (3) Green v Hunt (North Carolina); and (4) Debra P. v Turlington (Florida). Judge Carr's opinion in Debra P. is thus far the only substantive judicial pronouncement on competency testing. Because of an inadequate implementation period, Florida's right to use the Functional Literacy Examination as a high school graduation requirement is delayed until 1982-83. The court criticized Florida's program but did not order other legal sanctions. Future cases may challenge entire programs or portions, such as: diploma sanctions, remediation, and private school exemption. Other cases may seek to create programs or challenge the use of test results for accountability, malpractice, teacher evaluation, and funding. (CP)