New York Law Review

Tag: Standardized Testing

  • Dalton v. Educational Testing Service, 87 N.Y.2d 384 (1995): Implied Duty of Good Faith in Contract Performance

    87 N.Y.2d 384 (1995)

    A party exercising contractual discretion must do so in good faith by considering relevant information provided by the other party, even if the contract does not explicitly require investigation.

    Summary

    Brian Dalton, a high school student, sued Educational Testing Service (ETS) after ETS questioned the validity of his SAT score due to a significant score increase and handwriting discrepancies. Dalton provided additional information to ETS, but ETS maintained its concerns. The trial court found that ETS failed to adequately evaluate Dalton’s information and breached its contract. The Court of Appeals agreed that ETS breached its contract by failing to consider relevant information, violating its implied duty of good faith. However, it modified the remedy, requiring ETS to reconsider Dalton’s information rather than release the questioned score.

    Facts

    Brian Dalton’s SAT score increased by 410 points between May and November. ETS questioned the score’s validity due to the increase and handwriting discrepancies. ETS notified Dalton of its concerns and offered him options, including providing additional information. Dalton submitted information, including medical records, diagnostic test results, and statements from a proctor and fellow students. ETS obtained a second document examiner report confirming handwriting discrepancies.

    Procedural History

    Dalton’s father filed a proceeding to prohibit ETS from canceling the score and to compel its release. The trial court ruled that ETS breached its contract by failing to adequately evaluate Dalton’s information and ordered ETS to release the score. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division order, requiring ETS to reconsider the information rather than release the score.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether ETS breached its contract with Dalton by failing to adequately consider the information he provided regarding the validity of his SAT score.
    2. Whether specific performance in this case should consist of requiring ETS to release the challenged SAT score or to reconsider the test-taker’s submitted evidence.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because ETS has a duty to act in good faith and that duty includes considering relevant material submitted by the test-taker.
    2. The appropriate remedy is to require ETS to reconsider the submitted information because that is all ETS promised in the contract.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that ETS had a contractual duty to consider relevant information provided by Dalton, stemming from the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in all contracts. The Court found that ETS framed the key issue as potential impersonation, making Dalton’s evidence of his presence during the exam relevant. The Court stated that test proctor and classmate’s statements, along with medical documentation and diagnostic test results, were relevant. The Court deferred to the lower courts’ findings that ETS Board members testified they believed evidence of Dalton’s presence during the exam was “a non-issue…not an issue at all to be considered”.

    The Court emphasized that it cannot review findings of fact supported by the record. Because lower courts found that ETS failed to evaluate Dalton’s material, the Court held that ETS breached its contract. The Court distinguished cases where the testing service considered but then rejected the evidence, noting that ETS “refuses to exercise its discretion in the first instance by declining even to consider relevant material submitted by the test-taker”. The Court modified the remedy to require ETS to reconsider Dalton’s information in good faith, holding that ordering the release of the score would exceed ETS’s contractual promise and undermine the reliance of others on the validity of ETS scores. As the Court stated, “Dalton is entitled to relief that comports with ETS’ contractual promise — good-faith consideration of the material he submitted to ETS”.

  • Board of Education v. Ambach, 60 N.Y.2d 758 (1983): Upholding Standardized Testing for High School Diplomas

    60 N.Y.2d 758 (1983)

    A school district’s requirement that students pass competency tests as a condition for receiving a high school diploma is valid, provided students have adequate notice of the requirement and a reasonable opportunity to prepare.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals upheld a school district’s requirement that students pass competency tests to receive a high school diploma. The court found that the students had adequate notice of the requirement because the regulation had been in effect for three years before they completed their studies. The students argued they had a reasonable expectation of receiving a diploma without passing the tests and that they were not provided adequate notice. The Court of Appeals disagreed, and affirmed the lower court’s decision that the school district’s requirement was valid, therefore finding that the students contentions did not warrant the relief requested.

    Facts

    “Abby” and “Richard” were students in the Northport-East Northport Union Free School District. The school district had a regulation in place for three years requiring students to pass competency tests to receive a high school diploma. The students challenged the regulation, claiming they had a reasonable expectation of receiving a diploma without passing the tests and that they did not receive adequate notice of the requirement.

    Procedural History

    The students filed a petition challenging the school district’s regulation. The lower court ruled in favor of the school district. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The students appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a school district can require students to pass competency tests as a condition for receiving a high school diploma, when the regulation has been in effect for three years.

    Holding

    Yes, because the students had no reasonable expectation of receiving a high school diploma without passing competency tests, and adequate notice was given, as the regulation had been in effect for three years prior to the completion of their studies.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that under the circumstances, the students had no reasonable expectation of receiving a high school diploma without passing competency tests. The court emphasized the importance of providing students with adequate notice of graduation requirements. Here, because the regulation requiring competency tests had been in effect for three years prior to the completion of their studies, the court found that the students were given adequate notice. The court also agreed with the reasoning of the Appellate Division.

  • James v. Board of Education of City of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 357 (1977): Judicial Deference to Educational Policy

    James v. Board of Education of City of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 357 (1977)

    Courts should generally defer to educational policy decisions made by school authorities unless there is a clear statutory or constitutional violation.

    Summary

    This case addresses the extent to which courts can interfere with educational policy decisions made by school authorities. Parents and teachers sought to enjoin the administration of city-wide reading and mathematics examinations, alleging that the integrity of the reading portion had been compromised. The New York Court of Appeals held that the decision to administer the examination, despite the alleged irregularities, was a matter within the professional judgment and discretion of school administrators, not the courts. Absent a clear statutory or constitutional violation, courts should defer to the expertise of educational authorities.

    Facts

    The New York City Board of Education scheduled city-wide comprehensive reading and mathematics examinations. Prior to the test date, copies of the reading portion were accidentally distributed to some classes in District 6. An investigation revealed that approximately 3,000 students may have had prior access to the reading test. The Chancellor decided to proceed with the examinations, using an alternate form in affected schools. Parents and teachers sought to enjoin the administration of the test, claiming the irregularities were more widespread and that the results would be unfairly used to influence student placement and funding decisions.

    Procedural History

    Petitioners sought administrative relief from the New York City Board of Education and the State Commissioner of Education, both of whom declined to interfere with the Chancellor’s decision. The petitioners then commenced an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the decision to administer the examinations and secured a temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction from Special Term. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the courts have the power to enjoin, even temporarily, the administration of examinations to school pupils based on contentions that the integrity of the examinations had been fatally compromised.

    Holding

    No, because whether an examination has been so compromised as to strip it of validity as a device for measuring educational achievement is a matter committed to the professional judgment and discretion of those responsible for the administration of the public schools, and is not a matter for the courts.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that the Chancellor has a statutory duty to administer a comprehensive reading test, but the determination of whether a particular test satisfies that statutory direction rests with the Chancellor, the Board of Education, and the Commissioner of Education. The court noted the established system for reviewing decisions of school authorities, placing initial responsibility on the Chancellor, subject to review by the Board of Education and the State Commissioner of Education. The Court cited Bullock v. Cooley, 225 N.Y. 566, 576-577, stating that the purpose of these provisions “is to make all matters pertaining to the general school system of the state within the authority and control of the department of education and to remove the same so far as practicable and possible from controversies in the courts.” The court reasoned that it’s not the role of the courts to dictate the form of examination or to second-guess educational policy decisions. Even if the court questioned the wisdom of the Chancellor’s decision, it lacked the power to interfere, absent a clear violation of a defined public policy. The court concluded that the petitioners were seeking to compel executive officials to engage in a general course of conduct related to test administration, which would involve the court in overseeing the exercise of judgment and discretion inappropriate for judicial resolution. Such oversight is vested in the educational authorities at the local and state level. To allow the injunction to stand would displace the lawful acts of those officials charged with managing the New York City public school system.