HIGHER EDUCATION 

AND DISABILITY 

Improved Federal 

Enforcement Needed 

to Better Protect 

Students’ Rights to 

Testing 

Accommodations 

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2011 

GAO-12-40 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 
 United States Government Accountability Office 

Highlights of GAO-12-40, a report to 

congressional requesters 

November 2011 

HIGHER EDUCATION AND DISABILITY

Improved Federal Enforcement Needed to Better 

Protect Students’ Rights to Testing Accommodations

Why GAO Did This Study 

Standardized tests are often required 

to gain admission into postsecondary 

schools or to obtain professional 

certifications. Federal disability laws, 

such as the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA) require entities that 

administer these tests to provide 

accommodations, such as extended 

time or changes in test format, to 

students with disabilities. GAO 

examined (1) the types of 

accommodations individuals apply for 

and receive and how schools assist 

them, (2) factors testing companies 

consider when making decisions about 

requests for accommodations, (3) 

challenges individuals and testing 

companies experience in receiving and 

granting accommodations, and (4) how 

federal agencies enforce compliance 

with relevant disability laws and 

regulations. To conduct this work, GAO 

interviewed disability experts; 

individuals with disabilities; officials 

from high schools, postsecondary 

schools, testing companies; and 

officials from the Departments of 

Justice (Justice), Education, and 

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

GAO also reviewed testing company 

policies and data, federal complaint 

and case data for selected testing 

companies, and relevant laws and 

regulations. 

What GAO Recommends 

GAO recommends that the Department 

of Justice take steps to develop a 

strategic approach to enforcement 

such as by analyzing its data and 

updating its technical assistance 

manual. Justice agreed with GAO’s 

recommendation.

What GAO Found 

Among accommodations requested and granted in the most recent testing year, 

approximately three-quarters were for extra time, and about half were for 

applicants with learning disabilities. High school and postsecondary school 

officials GAO interviewed reported advising students about which 

accommodations to request and providing documentation to testing companies, 

such as a student’s accommodations history. 

Testing companies included in GAO’s study reported that they grant 

accommodations based on their assessment of an applicant’s eligibility under the 

ADA and whether accommodation requests are appropriate for their tests. 

Testing companies look for evidence of the functional limitations that prevent the 

applicant from taking the exam under standard conditions. They also consider 

what accommodations are appropriate for their tests and may grant 

accommodations that were different than those requested. For example, one 

testing company official told GAO that applicants with attention 

deficit/hyperactivity disorder all might request extra time, but may be granted 

different accommodations given their limitations––extra time for an applicant 

unable to maintain focus; extra breaks for an applicant unable to sit still for an 

extended time period; a separate room for an easily distracted applicant. 

Documenting need and determining appropriate accommodations can present 

challenges to students and testing companies. Some applicants GAO 

interviewed found testing companies’ documentation requirements difficult to 

understand and unreasonable. Most applicants GAO spoke with said they sought 

accommodations that they were accustomed to using, and some found it 

frustrating that the testing company would not provide the same accommodations 

for the test. Testing companies reported challenges with ensuring fairness to all 

test takers and maintaining the reliability of their tests when making 

accommodations decisions. Testing company officials said that reviewing 

requests that contain limited information can make it difficult to make an informed 

decision. Some testing company officials also expressed concern with being 

required to provide accommodations that best ensure an applicant’s test results 

reflect the applicant’s aptitude rather than providing what they consider to be 

reasonable accommodations. 

Federal enforcement of laws and regulations governing testing accommodations 

is largely complaint-driven and involves multiple agencies. While Justice has 

overall responsibility for enforcing compliance under the ADA, Education and 

HHS have enforcement responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act for testing 

companies that receive federal financial assistance from them. Education and 

HHS officials said that they investigate each eligible complaint. Justice officials 

said they review each complaint at in-take, but they do not make a determination 

on every complaint because of the large volume of complaints it receives. Justice 

has clarified ADA requirements for testing accommodations primarily by revising 

its regulations, but it lacks a strategic approach to targeting enforcement. 

Specifically, Justice has not fully utilized complaint data—either its own or that of 

other agencies—to inform its efforts. Justice officials said that they reviewed 

complaints on a case-by-case basis but did not conduct systematic searches of 

their data to inform their overall approach to enforcement. Additionally, Justice 

has not initiated compliance reviews of testing companies, and its technical 

assistance on this subject has been limited. 

View GAO-12-40. For more information, 

contact George Scott at (202) 512-7215 or 

scottg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

Letter 1 

Background 3

Additional Time Was the Most Frequently Requested and Granted 

Accommodation 7

Testing Companies Determine Whether Applicants Qualify for 

Accommodations under the ADA and Whether Requests Are 

Appropriate 14

Documenting Need and Determining Appropriate Accommodations 

Can Present Challenges to Applicants and Testing Companies 18

Federal Enforcement Is Largely Complaint-Driven, and Justice 

Lacks a Strategic Approach to Ensure Testing Company 

Compliance 22

Conclusions 29

Recommendation for Executive Action 30

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Justice 38 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Education 43 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44

Tables 

Table 1: Tests Included in Our Study 33

Table 2: Schools Interviewed 35

Figures 

Figure 1: Percentage of Accommodations Requested and Granted 

by Accommodation Type in Most Recent Testing Year for 

Selected Testing Companies 8

Contents 
Page ii GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

Figure 2: Percentage of Accommodations Requested and Granted 

by Disability Type in the Most Recent Testing Year for 

Selected Testing Companies 10

Abbreviations 

AAMC Association of American Medical Colleges 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

ADAAA ADA Amendments Act of 2008 

ADD attention deficit disorder 

ADHD attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder 

Education Department of Education 

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

ETS Educational Testing Service 

FSMB Federation of State Medical Boards 

GMAC Graduate Management Admission Council 

GMAT Graduate Management Admission Test 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

IEP Individualized Education Program 

Justice Department of Justice 

LSAC Law School Admission Council 

LSAT Law School Admission Test 

MCAT Medical College Admission Test 

MPRE Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination 

NABP National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 

NAPLEX North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination 

NBME National Board of Medical Examiners 

NCBE National Conference of Bar Examiners 

PCAT Pharmacy College Admission Test 

Rehabilitation Act Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

USMLE United States Medical Licensing Examination 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

November 29, 2011 

The Honorable George Miller 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Pete Stark 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Health 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers 

House of Representatives 

Each year, millions of people take standardized tests to gain admission to 

postsecondary education or to receive a professional license for certain 

professions. These tests, which are typically administered under uniform 

conditions and time limits, are designed to predict future academic 

success or measure a person’s knowledge in the area tested. While 

standardization is intended to ensure comparability of test scores across 

examinees, it may make it challenging for some individuals with 

disabilities to accurately demonstrate their ability. Federal disability laws, 

such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 19901

 (ADA), protect 

individuals with disabilities from discrimination and a specific provision of 

that act requires private companies offering standardized tests to provide 

accommodations, such as extended time or extra breaks, in order to 

make tests accessible to individuals with disabilities. However, disability 

advocates and experts have raised questions about how testing 

companies make decisions about accommodations and whether or not 

they are complying with federal disability laws and regulations. Similarly, 

testing companies have raised questions about protecting the integrity of 

their tests by ensuring that accommodations are given only to those 

individuals who require them. Given the importance of testing 

accommodations in helping students with disabilities access higher 

education and professional licensure, we examined: (1) what types of 

 

1

42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 

 
Page 2 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

accommodations individuals apply for and receive and how schools assist 

them, (2) what factors testing companies consider when making decisions 

about requests for testing accommodations, (3) what challenges 

applicants and testing companies experience in receiving and granting 

testing accommodations, and (4) how federal agencies enforce 

compliance with relevant federal disability laws and regulations. 

In conducting this work, we focused our review on a nongeneralizeable 

sample of 11 tests offered by 10 testing companies for admission into 

undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs and to obtain 

professional certification. We included the 2 most common undergraduate 

admissions tests and, for the graduate and professional level, we 

included 5 admissions and 4 professional certification tests used in the 

fields of study with the largest numbers of graduates and the top three 

fields of study in which students with disabilities are enrolled.2

 We 

interviewed disability experts, representatives from a nongeneralizable 

sample of 8 high schools and 13 postsecondary schools, and eight 

individuals with disabilities who were referred to us by those experts and 

school officials and were applicants for accommodations on one or more 

tests included in our study. We selected schools based on characteristics 

such as size, geographic diversity, public or private funding and, in the 

case of postsecondary schools, academic programs. We also conducted 

interviews with 7 testing companies and reviewed written responses to 

our questions from 2 companies that declined our requests for an 

interview. One company declined to participate in our study. We also 

reviewed data provided by testing companies on the types of 

accommodations requested and granted. Based on their responses to 

questions about data reliability, we believe the information they provided 

is sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We reviewed policies 

and procedures for requesting accommodations found on testing 

companies’ Web sites. However, we did not evaluate whether these 

policies and procedures, or the procedures described to us in interviews, 

were in compliance with relevant laws or regulations. Testing companies 

that participated in our study reviewed draft statements in this report, and 

 

2

Undergraduate admissions tests include the ACT and SAT. Graduate and professional 

admissions tests include: the GRE, Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), Law 

School Admission Test (LSAT), Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), and the 

Pharmacy College Admission Test (PCAT). Professional certification tests include: the 

Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE), the North American 

Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX), the PRAXIS Series (PRAXIS), and the 

United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). 
Page 3 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

their comments were incorporated where appropriate. We reviewed 

relevant federal laws and regulations; reviewed selected court cases 

regarding testing accommodations; interviewed officials from the 

Departments of Justice (Justice), Education (Education), and Health and 

Human Services (HHS); and reviewed available information on 

complaints each agency received from fiscal years 2007 through 2010 

regarding the 10 testing companies included in our study. However due to 

data limitations described in the report, we cannot generalize the results 

of our file review. A more detailed explanation of our objectives, scope, 

and methodology can be found in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2010 to November 

2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

In determining whether to provide testing accommodations, testing 

companies are required to adhere to Section 309 of the ADA and, in 

some circumstances, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended3

 (the Rehabilitation Act), as well as regulations implementing 

those laws. Section 309 of the ADA provides that “[a]ny person that offers 

examinations or courses related to applications, licensing, certification, or 

credentialing for secondary or post-secondary education, professional, or 

trade purposes” must offer them “in a place and manner accessible to 

persons with disabilities or offer alternative accessible 

arrangements...[.]”4

 Section 504 prohibits discrimination against 

individuals with disabilities by entities receiving federal financial 

 

3

29 U.S.C. § 794. 

4

42 U.S.C. § 12189. Section 309 is found in Title III of the ADA, which prohibits 

discrimination by private entities owning, leasing, or operating places of public 

accommodation. Justice has stated, however, that section 309, with its reference to “any 

person” that offers examinations, applies to both public and private entities. See 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, 75 

Fed. Reg. 56,164, 56,236 (Sept. 15, 2010) (codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, app. A). Public 

entities are also subject to Title II of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination by state and 

local government in services, programs, or activities, including examinations offered by 

public entities. However, our review focused on private testing companies. 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

assistance.5 Persons requesting accommodations are entitled to them 

only if they have a disability as defined by those statutes. Both the ADA 

and the Rehabilitation Act define individuals with disabilities as those who 

have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more 

major life activities, have a record of such impairment, or are regarded as 

having such an impairment.6

 Justice is charged with enforcing testing 

company compliance within Section 309 of the ADA, and the 

Departments of Education and HHS are responsible for enforcing 

compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for any testing 

companies that receive federal financial assistance from them.7

In 2008, concerned that judicial interpretations had limited the scope of 

protection it had intended under the ADA, Congress enacted the ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA),8

 rejecting several Supreme Court 

interpretations that had narrowed the definition of an individual with 

disabilities. The ADA Amendments Act set out guidelines for determining 

who qualifies as an individual with disabilities and provided a 

nonexhaustive list of “major life activities,” which includes learning, 

reading, concentrating, and thinking. In the ADAAA, Congress also stated 

that it found the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) regulation regarding the definition of an individual with a disability 

inconsistent with congressional intent and directed the EEOC to revise 

that regulation.9

 On March 25, 2011, the EEOC issued final regulations, 

implementing Title I of the ADAAA.10 Those regulations, which went into 

effect on May 24, 2011, provide that the term “substantially limits” should 

be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum 

 

5

Nonfederal entities, including testing companies, can receive federal financial assistance 

through a variety of arrangements such as grants, loans, and cooperative agreements. 

Federal financial assistance does not include procurement contracts. 

6

42 U.S.C. § 12102 and 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B). 

7

Education’s Section 504 regulations are codified at 34 C.F.R. part 104, and HHS’s 

Section 504 regulations are codified at 45 C.F.R. part 84. 

8

Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008). 

9

The EEOC enforces Title I of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination in employment. 

1076 Fed. Reg. 16,978. While Section 6 of the ADAAA made clear that the authority to 

issue regulations granted to agencies implementing the ADA includes authority to issue 

regulations regarding the definition of disability, Justice has not addressed the term 

“substantially limits” in regulations since the enactment of the ADAAA although it has 

stated that it intends to do so. 75 Fed. Reg. 56,236, 56,237 (Sept.15, 2010). 
Page 5 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

extent permitted by the ADA and is not meant to be a demanding 

standard; that when determining if an individual is substantially limited in 

performing a major life activity, the determination of disability should not 

require extensive analysis and should be compared with that of “most 

people in the general population;” and that the comparison to most people 

will not usually require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis.11 The 

regulations provide that, in applying these principles, it may be useful to 

consider, as compared with most people in the general population, the 

condition under which the individual performs the major life activity; the 

manner in which the individual performs the major life activity; and/or the 

duration of time it takes the individual to perform the major life activity.”12

In 1991, Justice issued regulations implementing Section 309 which, 

among other things, provide that any private entity offering an 

examination must assure that “[t]he examination is selected and 

administered so as to best ensure that, when the examination is 

administered to an individual with a disability that impairs sensory, 

manual, or speaking skill, the examination results accurately reflect the 

individual’s aptitude, achievement level or whatever other factor the 

examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the individual’s 

impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills.....[.]”13 Under the 

regulations, such entities are also required to provide individuals with 

disabilities appropriate auxiliary aids unless the entity can demonstrate 

that a particular auxiliary aid would fundamentally alter what the 

examination is intended to measure or would result in an undue burden.14

On September 15, 2010, Justice issued a final rule adding three new 

 

1129 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). 

12In the appendix to Part 1630, the EEOC discussed condition, manner, or duration and 

stated that “[t]hus, someone with a learning disability may achieve a high level of 

academic success, but may nevertheless be substantially limited in the major life activity 

of learning because of the additional time or effort he or she must spend to read, write or 

learn compared to most people in the general population. As Congress emphasized in 

passing the Amendments Act, ‘[w]hen considering the condition, manner, or duration in 

which an individual with a specific learning disability performs a major life activity, it is 

critical to reject the assumption that an individual who has performed well academically 

cannot be substantially limited in activities such as learning, reading, writing, thinking, or 

speaking.’ 2008 Senate Statement of Managers at 8.” 76 Fed. Reg. 16,978 at 

17,012–17,013. 

1356 Fed. Reg. 35,544, 35,572 (July 26, 1991) (codified at 28 C.F.R. § 36.309). 

1428 C.F.R. § 36.309(b)(3). 
Page 6 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

provisions to its regulations, stating that, through its enforcement efforts, it 

had addressed concerns that requests by testing entities for 

documentation regarding the existence of an individual’s disability and 

need for accommodations were often inappropriate and burdensome. The 

first new provision requires that documentation requested by a testing 

entity must be reasonable and limited to the need for the accommodation. 

The second new provision states that a testing entity should give 

considerable weight to documentation of past accommodations received 

in similar testing situations, as well as those provided under an 

Individualized Education Program (IEP) provided under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or a plan providing services 

pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (a Section 504 plan). 

The third new provision provides that a testing entity must respond to 

requests for accommodation in a timely manner.15

Since the ADAAA and EEOC regulations have broadened the definition of 

an individual with disabilities, it is possible that the focus for determining 

eligibility for testing accommodations will shift from determining whether a 

person requesting testing accommodations is an individual with a 

disability for purposes of the ADA to what accommodations must be 

provided to meet the requirements of Section 309 and its implementing 

regulations. Several recent cases that address the type of 

accommodations that must be provided under Section 309 will likely 

impact the latter determination. In Enyart v. National Conference of Bar 

Examiners, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the 

argument that Section 309 requires only “reasonable accommodations” 

and adopted the higher “best ensure” standard for determining 

accessibility that Justice included in its regulations.16 The court found that 

the requirement in Section 309, that testing entities offer examinations in 

a manner accessible to individuals with disabilities, was ambiguous. As a 

result, it deferred to the requirement in Justice’s regulations providing that 

 

1575 Fed. Reg. 56,236, 56,255 (Sept. 15, 2010). These provisions, which became 

effective on March 15, 2011, are codified at 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.309(b)(1)(iv), (b)(1)(v) and 

(b)(1)(vi). 

16Enyart v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, Inc., 630 F.3d 1153 (2011). On 

October 3 the U.S. Supreme Court denied NCBE’s request that it review the Court of 

Appeals decision. On October 24, 2011 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

California ordered NCBE to provide Ms. Enyart with the screen reading and screen 

magnification software which the court found met the best ensure standard. 2011 WL 

5037977. 
Page 7 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

testing entities must offer examinations “so as to best ensure” that the 

exam results accurately reflect the test takers aptitude rather than 

disabilities. Applying that standard, the court found that NCBE was 

required to provide Enyart, a blind law school graduate, with the 

accommodations she had requested rather than the ones offered by 

NCBE based on evidence that her requested accommodations were 

necessary to make the test accessible to her given her specific 

impairment and the specific nature of the exam.17

Extra time represented approximately three-quarters of all 

accommodations requested and granted in the most recent testing year, 

with 50 percent extra time representing the majority of this category (see 

fig. 1).18 According to researchers, one explanation for the high incidence 

of this accommodation is that students with the most commonly reported 

disabilities—learning disabilities, such as dyslexia; attention deficit 

disorder (ADD); or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)—may 

need extra time to compensate for slower processing or reading speeds. 

In addition, extra time may be needed to support other accommodations, 

 

17A number of federal district courts have followed the Ninth Circuit’s approach. See Elder 

v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, 2011 WL 672662 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2011);

Bonnette v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, et al., 2011 WL 2714896 (D.D.C., July 

13, 2011) and Jones v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, 2011 WL 3321507 (D.Vt., 

Aug. 2, 2011). Justice filed a statement of interest in the Elder and Jones cases, 

endorsing the Enyart decision and stating that the appropriate standard under which to 

evaluate accommodations is the “best ensure” standard rather than a “reasonableness” 

standard. 

18Data on accommodations requested pertain to 7 of the 10 tests for which we received 

data: GRE, MCAT, MPRE, NAPLEX, PRAXIS, SAT, and USMLE. Data on 

accommodations granted pertain to 9 of the 10 tests for which we received data: ACT, 

GMAT, GRE, MCAT, MPRE, NAPLEX, PRAXIS, SAT, and USMLE. Accommodations 

may have been requested in a different year from which they were granted. 

Additional Time Was 

the Most Frequently 

Requested and 

Granted 

Accommodation 

Students Most Often 

Requested and Received 

Additional Time According 

to Testing Company Data 
Page 8 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

such as having a person read the test to a test taker or write down the 

responses. 

Figure 1: Percentage of Accommodations Requested and Granted by Accommodation Type in Most Recent Testing Year for 

Selected Testing Companies 

Notes: 

Testing companies provided data on the most recent testing year for which they had data; however, 

this time period may vary across testing companies. Some accommodations may have been 

requested in a different year from when they were granted. Additionally, data on accommodations 

requested and granted include different tests. Data on accommodations requested by 

accommodation type pertain to the following tests: GRE, MCAT, MPRE, NAPLEX, PRAXIS, SAT, and 

USMLE. Data on accommodations granted by accommodation type pertain to the following tests: 

ACT, GMAT, GRE, MCAT, MPRE, NAPLEX, PRAXIS, SAT, and USMLE. Due to these limitations, 

the percentages do not necessarily represent a one-to-one comparison between accommodations 

requested and those that were granted. 

The “Other” category includes accommodations such as being allowed to bring in a snack or using 

various types of assistive technology to take the test, such as computer software to magnify text or 

convert it into spoken language. 

The remaining quarter of accommodations that students requested and 

testing companies granted in the most recent testing year include 

changes in the testing environment, extra breaks, alternate test formats, 

and auditory or visual assistance. Changes to the testing environment 

might involve preferential seating or testing in a separate room to 

minimize distractions. The accommodation of extra breaks could be an 

extension of the scheduled break time between test sections or breaks 

when needed, depending on students’ individual circumstances. For 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by testing companies.

59% 57%

15% 17%

5%

3%

3%

4%

7%

4%

7%

3%

10%

4%

50% extra time

Extra/extended breaks

More than 50% extra time

Adjustments in testing environment

Other

Alternate text format

Auditory or visual assistance

Accommodations requested by accommodation type Accommodations granted by accommodation type
Page 9 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

example, students might need more than the allotted break time if they 

have a medical condition that requires them to test their blood sugar or 

use the restroom. Requests for auditory or visual assistance might entail 

having a “reader” to read the test aloud, whereas alternate test formats 

include large type, Braille, or audio versions. Additionally, students 

requested some other types of accommodations, including being allowed 

to have snacks as needed or using various types of assistive technology 

to take the test, such as computer software to magnify text or convert it 

into spoken language. For example, one blind individual we interviewed 

described using Braille to take tests and screen reading software to 

complete assignments when she was an undergraduate student. When it 

came time to request accommodations for a graduate school admissions 

test, she requested use of screen reading software because it helps her 

read long passages more quickly than with Braille alone. However, she 

also requested use of Braille because it allows her to more closely study 

a passage she did not initially comprehend. Students and disability 

experts we spoke with also told us that students may need multiple 

accommodations to help them overcome their disabilities, and that their 

requests reflect the accommodations that have previously worked for 

them. For example, in addition to using screen reading software and 

Braille, the blind student mentioned above was also allowed extra time, 

use of a computer, breaks in between test sections, a scribe, and a few 

other accommodations. 

An estimated 179,000 individuals with disabilities—approximately 2 

percent—of about 7.7 million test takers took an exam with an 

accommodation in the most recent testing year, according to data 

provided to us.19 Approximately half of all accommodations requested and 

granted were for applicants with learning disabilities, and one-quarter was 

for those with ADD or ADHD. The remainder of accommodations 

requested and granted was for applicants with physical or sensory 

disabilities, such as an orthopedic or vision impairment; or psychiatric 

 

19We received data about the number of test takers that took the exam with an 

accommodation for nine tests: ACT, GMAT, GRE, MPRE, NAPLEX, PCAT, PRAXIS, SAT, 

and USMLE. We did not receive data on the number of test takers that took the MCAT 

with an accommodation. Some testing companies provided data on individuals who 

registered for the exam or applied for accommodations, not the number of individuals who 

took the exam, so these figures are estimates. Testing companies provided data on the 

most recent testing year for which they had data; however, this time period may vary 

across testing companies. 
Page 10 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

disabilities, such as depression; and other disabilities, such as diabetes 

and autism spectrum disorders (see fig. 2).20

Figure 2: Percentage of Accommodations Requested and Granted by Disability Type in the Most Recent Testing Year for 

Selected Testing Companies 

Notes: 

Testing companies provided data on the most recent testing year for which they had data; however, 

this time period may vary across testing companies. Some accommodations may have been 

requested in a different year from when they were granted. Additionally, data on accommodations 

requested and granted include different tests. Data on accommodations requested by disability 

pertain to the following tests: GRE, MPRE, NAPLEX, PRAXIS, and SAT. Data on accommodations 

granted by disability pertain to the following tests: GMAT, GRE, MPRE, NAPLEX, PRAXIS, and SAT. 

Due to these limitations, the percentages do not necessarily represent a one-to-one comparison 

between accommodations requested and those that were granted. 

The “Other” category includes disabilities that could not be included in any existing category, such as 

diabetes, autism-spectrum disorders, and Tourette’s syndrome, when GAO aggregated testing 

company data. 

 

20Data on accommodations requested by disability pertain to 5 of the 10 tests for which 

we received data: GRE, MPRE, NAPLEX, PRAXIS, and SAT. Data on accommodations 

granted by disability pertain to 6 of the 10 tests for which we received data: GMAT, GRE, 

MPRE, NAPLEX, PRAXIS, and SAT. Accommodations may have been requested in a 

different year from which they were granted. These numbers may not include individuals 

who identified as having multiple disabilities. 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by testing companies.

46% 49%

26% 25%

14% 12%

10% 10%

4% 4%

Learning disability

Physical/sensory

Psychiatric

ADD/ADHD

Other

Accommodations requested by disability type Accommodations granted by disability type
Page 11 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

High School Services for Students with Disabilities 

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, children with disabilities must be identified, located and evaluated 

and, as appropriate, provided with special education and related services through an 

IEP or 504 plan. Pursuant to these requirements, schools maintain records that 

describe the student’s disability and accommodations history, which can include the 

disability diagnosis, psychoeducational test results, and relevant developmental and 

educational history. This type of documentation is key to helping students obtain 

accommodations on admissions tests and in postsecondary school. 

High schools help students apply for accommodations on undergraduate 

admissions tests in several ways. According to disability experts and a 

few high schools we interviewed, school counselors alert students to the 

need to apply for accommodations and advise them about what to 

request. Additionally, school officials play an important role in helping 

students with the application. For certain types of requests, school 

officials can submit the application on the student’s behalf, requiring 

minimal student involvement.21 One testing company reported that 98.5 

percent of new accommodation requests for a postsecondary admissions 

test were submitted this way in the most recent testing year. Alternatively, 

when students submit the application themselves, school officials can 

provide copies of the disability documentation on file with the school. In 

addition to helping students with the application process itself, high school 

officials can also facilitate communications between the student and 

testing company after the application has been submitted. For example, 

one high school administrator we interviewed reported contacting a 

testing company about an accommodation application that had been 

submitted past the deadline for a specific test date. In this case, the 

student’s recent health diagnosis and treatment necessitated 

accommodations, and the administrator helped explain why it was 

important for the student to take the test when originally scheduled. 

 

21More specifically, officials can either use a school verification process to verify that the 

student’s disability and accompanying documentation meet the testing company’s 

guidelines for the requested accommodation or submit a copy of the documentation as 

well. 

High Schools and 

Postsecondary Schools 

Assist Students Who Apply 

for Testing 

Accommodations in a 

Variety of Ways 
Page 12 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

Postsecondary Schools’ Services for Students with Disabilities 

Postsecondary schools provide an array of services to help ensure that students have 

equal access to education. School officials we interviewed work closely with students 

who self-identify as having a disability and request services to provide 

accommodations, coordinate with faculty and campus services, meet periodically with 

students to monitor their progress, and adjust accommodations as necessary. Schools 

are required to identify an individual who coordinates the school’s compliance with the 

Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. Some schools also have a centralized disability 

services office to coordinate these services. 

The transition from high school to postsecondary school can present 

challenges for all students, and especially for students with disabilities 

because they must assume more responsibility for their education by 

identifying themselves as having a disability, providing documentation of 

their disability, and requesting accommodations and services.22 For 

example, students must decide whether or not to use accommodations in 

their postsecondary courses and, if needed, obtain any new 

documentation required to support a request for accommodations. 

Consequently, postsecondary schools play an important role in advising 

students with disabilities to help them achieve success both in school and 

when applying for testing accommodations. Generally, when 

postsecondary students apply for testing accommodations, school 

officials provide a letter documenting the accommodations students have 

used in school.23 In addition to providing these letters, postsecondary 

officials we interviewed described several ways they advise students who 

apply for testing accommodations, including the following: 

 Counseling students about what accommodations best meet their 

needs—Postsecondary school officials play an important role in 

helping students adapt to the new academic environment and in 

determining the best accommodations to use in school and for 

standardized tests to achieve success at this level. For example, at 

one postsecondary school, a committee consisting of two learning 

specialists, a psychologist, two administrative staff, and the director of 

the disability services office meet to review each student’s request for 

 

22GAO, Higher Education and Disability: Education Needs a Coordinated Approach to 

Improve its Assistance to Schools in Supporting Students, GAO-10-33 (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct. 28, 2009). 

23Only one testing company participating in our study employs a school verification 

process similar to the one high school officials can use to help students apply for 

accommodations. 
Page 13 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

accommodations and discuss the appropriate services to provide for 

his or her courses. With technological advances, an official at another 

school has advised some students to reconsider requesting the 

accommodation of extra time as they may be better served by other 

accommodations, such as screen readers, to address their disability. 

According to the official, using certain technologies has decreased the 

need for extra time for some students as they have been able to 

complete more of their work on time. 

 Explaining application requirements—Postsecondary school officials 

advise students about the need to apply for testing accommodations 

and help them understand application requirements, which can be 

extensive. For example, several postsecondary officials we 

interviewed said they alerted students to the need to apply for testing 

accommodations and to allow sufficient time for the application 

process. One official reported sending reminders to students about 

the need to apply for accommodations if they are considering 

graduate school, and another official reported advising students to 

begin the process 4 to 6 months in advance, in case the testing 

company requests additional information. Another school official 

described helping a student interpret the testing company’s 

instructions for the accommodation application, including what 

documentation is required. One school official said that she helps 

students understand more subtle aspects of preparing a successful 

application by, for example, recommending the use of consistent 

terminology to describe the disability throughout the application to 

make it easier for reviewers to understand. Several postsecondary 

officials we interviewed reported advising students about the 

likelihood of a testing company granting accommodations based on a 

review of their existing documentation. For example, a 

psychoeducational evaluation that was current when a student 

enrolled in postsecondary study might need to be updated by the time 

a student applies for testing accommodations. At one school, an 

official estimated that about 30 percent of the students served by the 

school’s disability service office would need to update their 

documentation if they decide to apply for testing accommodations. 

 Providing resources to obtain evaluations—A few postsecondary 

officials we interviewed reported referring students to a variety of 

resources when they need an updated or new evaluation, sometimes 

at substantial savings to the student. Two schools we interviewed 

make campus resources available to students, such as providing 

grants or scholarships to help students who demonstrate financial 

need to offset the cost of evaluations. Schools also reported helping 
Page 14 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

students by providing a mechanism for them to obtain the necessary 

evaluations on campus. For example, students can obtain an 

evaluation from the campus health and counseling center at one 

school for about $700, while the psychology clinic and the Department 

of Neuropsychology at another school provide these evaluations on a 

sliding fee basis. Additionally, officials said that they provide students 

with a list of area professionals who conduct evaluations, although 

such outside sources could cost several thousand dollars and may not 

be covered by health insurance. 

In reviewing requests for accommodations, testing companies included in 

our study reported considering a number of factors to determine whether 

applicants have a disability that entitles them to accommodations under 

the ADA. As part of their review process, the testing companies included 

in our study typically look for a current disability diagnosis made by a 

qualified professional. However, seven testing companies included in our 

study either state in their guidance for requesting accommodations or told 

us that the presence of a disability diagnosis does not guarantee an 

accommodation will be granted because they also need to consider the 

impact of the disability. Testing companies included in our study reported 

reviewing applications to understand how an applicant’s current functional 

limitations pose a barrier to taking the exam under standard conditions. 

As an example, one testing company official stated that someone with 

limited mobility might meet the ADA definition of a disability but not need 

an accommodation if the testing center is wheelchair accessible. 

To understand an applicant’s current functional limitations, testing 

companies may request documentation that provides evidence of how an 

applicant’s disability currently manifests itself, such as the results of 

diagnostic tests. For example, several testing companies included in our 

study request that applications for accommodations include the results of 

a psychoeducational test to support a learning disability diagnosis. As 

another example, applicants who have a hearing impairment would be 

asked to provide the results of a hearing test to document their current 

condition. Officials from most testing companies included in our review 

said that, for some types of disabilities, it is important to have 

documentation that is current to help them understand the functional 

limitations of an applicant’s disability. For example, one testing company 

official told us that disabilities of an unchanging nature, such as blindness 

or deafness, could be documented with evaluations from many years ago, 

whereas psychiatric conditions, learning disabilities, and ADHD would 

need more current evaluations. For applicants who may not have a formal 

Testing Companies 

Determine Whether 

Applicants Qualify for 

Accommodations 

under the ADA and 

Whether Requests Are 

Appropriate 
Page 15 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

disability diagnosis or recent medical evaluations, some testing company 

officials told us that they will look at whatever information applicants can 

provide to show how they are limited. For example, testing company 

officials said they will consider report cards or letters from teachers to 

obtain information about an applicant’s condition. 

Another factor that several testing companies consider is how an 

applicant’s functional ability compares to that of most people.24 For 

example, officials from one testing company told us that before granting 

an accommodation on the basis of a reading-related disability, they would 

review the applicant’s reading scores to make sure they were lower than 

those of the average person. Several testing company officials also told 

us that while reviewing information within an application for 

accommodations, they may reach a different conclusion about an 

applicant’s limitations and necessary accommodations than what the 

applicant requested. For example, one testing company initially denied an 

applicant’s request, in part, because the testing company’s comparison of 

the applicant’s diagnostic test scores with the average person his age led 

them to different conclusions about the applicant’s ability to function than 

those of the medical evaluator who performed the tests. 

As described previously, Justice recently added new requirements to its 

Section 309 regulations to further define the parameters of appropriate 

documentation requests made by testing companies in reviewing 

requests for accommodations.25 One of those amendments provides that 

a testing entity should give considerable weight to documentation of past 

accommodations received in similar testing situations, as well as those 

provided under an IEP or Section 504 plan. In discussing the regulations, 

most testing company officials we spoke with told us that they consider an 

 

24EEOC’s regulations implementing the equal employment provisions of the ADAAA state 

that an impairment is a disability within the meaning of the ADA if the impairment 

substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity “as compared 

to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). The previous 

version of the regulations referred to the “average person in the general population.” 

25Justice added three new provisions. The first states that documentation requested by a 

testing entity must be reasonable and limited to the need for the accommodation. The 

second states that a testing entity should give considerable weight to documentation of 

past accommodations received in similar testing situations, as well as those provided 

under an IEP or Section 504 plan. The third provides that a testing entity must respond to 

requests for accommodation in a timely manner. 75 Fed. Reg. 56,236, 56,255 (Sept. 15, 

2010). 
Page 16 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

applicant’s history of accommodations; however, they also told us they 

may require more information to make a decision. For example, officials 

from one testing company said they may want information, such as 

documentation from a medical professional and a personal statement 

from the applicant, to explain the need for the accommodation if it had not 

been used previously or in recent years. In guidance on its revised 

regulations, Justice states that when applicants demonstrate a consistent 

history of a diagnosis of a disability, testing companies generally should 

accept without further inquiry documentation provided by a qualified 

professional who has made an individualized assessment of the applicant 

and generally should grant the requested accommodation. 26 Testing 

company officials also told us they sometimes ask for more information 

than provided by a licensed professional in order to understand an 

applicant’s disability and limitations. For example, for certain disabilities, 

such as learning disabilities or ADHD, officials from two testing 

companies told us they may request evidence dating back to childhood 

since these disabilities are considered developmental. While Justice 

states in its guidance that the amendments to the regulation were 

necessary because its position on the bounds of appropriate 

documentation had not been implemented consistently and fully by 

testing entities,27 officials from almost all of the testing companies 

included in our study stated that they did not need to change any of their 

practices for granting accommodations to be in compliance. 

Testing companies included in our study also consider what 

accommodations are appropriate for their tests. In doing so, some testing 

company officials told us that they may grant an accommodation that is 

different from what an applicant requested. Based on their assessment of 

how an applicant is limited with respect to the exam, testing company 

officials told us they make a determination as to which accommodations 

they believe will address the applicant’s limitations. For example, one 

testing company official told us that three applicants with ADHD all might 

apply for extra time to complete the exam, but the testing company may 

decide different accommodations are warranted given each applicant’s 

limitations––extra time for an applicant unable to maintain focus; extra 

breaks for an applicant who has difficulty sitting still for an extended time 

period; preferential seating for the applicant who is easily distracted. Even 

 

2675 Fed. Reg. 56,236 at 56,297-56,298 (28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A). 

2775 Fed. Reg. 56,236 at 56,298. 
Page 17 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

though one testing company official told us that evidence of a prior history 

of accommodations can be helpful in understanding how 

accommodations have been used in the past, having a history of prior 

accommodations in school does not guarantee that those 

accommodations will be appropriate for the test. For example, according 

to one testing company, some students with hearing impairments who 

need accommodations such as a note taker in school may not need 

accommodations on a written standardized test. 

In reviewing requests for accommodations, several testing company 

officials told us they try to work with applicants when they do not grant the 

specific accommodations requested. For example, one testing company 

official told us that if an applicant has a qualifying disability and she could 

not grant the requested accommodation because it would alter the test, 

she will try to work with an applicant to determine an appropriate 

accommodation. In addition, all of the testing companies included in our 

study have a process by which applicants can appeal the decision if they 

disagree with the outcome. Based on their reviews, testing companies 

reported granting between 72 and 100 percent of accommodations that 

were requested in the most recent testing year for 6 of the 10 tests for 

which we received data.28 However, these testing companies counted an 

accommodation as granted even if it was different from what was 

requested. For example, testing companies told us that they would have 

counted an accommodation request for extra time as granted, even if the 

applicant requested more than what was granted. 

 

28The six tests for which we received data included the GRE, PRAXIS, PCAT, SAT, 

MPRE, and NAPLEX. Testing companies reported the total number of accommodations 

requested in the most recent testing year and, of that number, the total granted. 
Page 18 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

Some disability experts and applicants told us that one of the challenges 

in applying for accommodations was understanding how testing 

companies made their decisions, especially with relation to how much 

weight certain aspects of the application appeared to carry. Most of the 

applicants we spoke with told us that they requested accommodations 

that they were accustomed to using and were often frustrated that testing 

companies did not readily provide those accommodations. These 

applicants had gone through a process for requesting classroom 

accommodations and had documentation supporting those 

accommodations, and two applicants told us that they did not believe 

testing companies deferred to those documents in the way they would 

expect. Some disability experts expressed concern that testing 

companies rely heavily on scores that are perceived to be more objective 

measures, such as psychometric assessments, and two of these experts 

said they believe that, in addition to scores, testing companies should 

also consider the clinical or behavioral observations conducted by 

qualified professionals or school counselors. 

While testing companies provide guidance outlining their documentation 

requirements, some applicants and disability experts we spoke with told 

us that knowing what documentation to provide to a testing company can 

be a challenge in applying for accommodations. Two applicants told us it 

was unclear what and how much information to submit to support their 

requests. According to one of the applicants, the testing company asked 

for additional information to substantiate his request for additional time 

and a separate room to accommodate a learning disability, but was not 

specific about which documents it wanted or why. Four applicants told us 

they hired an attorney to help them determine what to submit in response 

to testing companies’ requests for additional information or to appeal a 

denial. According to one of the applicants, the attorney helped him find 

the right balance of documentation to submit to successfully obtain 

Documenting Need 

and Determining 

Appropriate 

Accommodations Can 

Present Challenges to 

Applicants and 

Testing Companies 

Applicant Challenges 
Page 19 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

accommodations, something he was not able to do when he first applied 

without legal assistance. School officials we spoke with said documenting 

the need for an accommodation can be particularly challenging for gifted 

students ––those who demonstrate high levels of aptitude or 

competence—because they may not have a history of academic difficulty 

or accommodations. As a result, it can be more difficult to know what 

documentation to provide to support their requests. 

Disability experts and applicants also told us that, in some instances, they 

found testing companies’ documentation requirements on providing a 

history of the disability to be unreasonable. Two applicants told us that 

they found it unreasonable to be asked to provide a lengthy history of 

their disability. For example, one student we spoke with who was 

diagnosed with a learning disability in college provided the testing 

company with the results of cognitive testing and documentation of the 

accommodations he received in college, but the testing company also 

requested records of his academic performance going back to elementary 

school. He did not understand how such information was relevant to 

document his current functioning and found the request to be 

unreasonable since he was 30 years removed from elementary school. 

Some applicants also found it frustrating to have to update medical 

assessments for conditions that had not changed. For example, one 

applicant was asked to obtain a new evaluation of her disability even 

though school evaluations conducted every 3 years consistently showed 

that she has dyslexia. Applicants and disability experts we spoke with told 

us that obtaining these assessments can be cost prohibitive, and 

applicants reported costs for updating these assessments ranging from 

$500 to $9,000. 

For blind applicants, access to familiar assistive technology, such as 

screen-reading or screen-magnification software, was particularly 

challenging, according to applicants and disability experts. Two blind 

applicants told us they faced difficulty with being allowed to use the 

specific technology they requested for the test. One of the applicants told 

us the testing company required him to use its screen-reading software 

rather than the one he used regularly, resulting in greater anxiety on the 

day of the test since he had to learn how to use a new tool. Similarly, this 

applicant told us he faced similar challenges in working with readers 

provided by different testing companies rather than readers of his own 

choosing, since he was not comfortable with the reader’s style. 

While most of the applicants we spoke with eventually received one or 

more of their requested accommodations, several of them reported 
Page 20 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

having to postpone their test date as a result of the amount of time the 

accommodations approval process took. Some applicants told us that 

they also experienced delays in achieving their educational or 

professional goals. Additionally, some applicants who were denied their 

accommodations told us that when they elected to take the test without 

accommodations, they felt that their exam results did not fully 

demonstrate their capabilities. For example, one applicant told us that he 

took a licensing exam a few times without the accommodations he 

requested over a two-year period while appealing the testing company’s 

decision, but each time his scores were not high enough for licensure nor 

did they reflect his academic performance. As a result, the applicant was 

two years behind his peers. Another applicant told us that she did not 

receive the requested accommodations for one of the licensing exams 

she applied for and decided not to take the exam for the time being 

because it wasn’t necessary for her to practice in the state she was living 

in. However, she anticipates needing to take the test as she furthers her 

career because the license will be needed for her to practice in 

surrounding states. 

Testing companies we interviewed reported challenges with ensuring 

fairness to all test takers when reviewing applications for 

accommodations. Officials from three testing companies expressed 

concern that some applicants may try to seek an unfair advantage by 

requesting accommodations they do not need. For example, officials from 

two of the companies said some applicants may see an advantage to 

getting an accommodation, such as extra time, and will request it without 

having a legitimate need. Officials from the other testing company told us 

that they do not want to provide accommodations to applicants who do 

not need them because doing so could compromise the predictive value 

of their tests and unfairly disadvantage other test takers.29 Officials from 

several testing companies told us that ensuring the reliability of their test 

scores was especially important since so many colleges, universities, and 

licensing bodies rely on them to make admissions and licensing 

decisions. 

 

29Numerous studies have addressed the effect of testing accommodations on the 

performance of students with disabilities, and results have varied. See S. G. Sireci, S. Li, 

and S. Scarpati. The Effects of Test Accommodation on Test Performance: A Review of 

the Literature (Research Report 485) (Amherst, MA: Center for Educational Assessment: 

2003).

Testing Company 

Challenges 
Page 21 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

Testing company officials told us that reviewing requests that contain 

limited information can be challenging because they do not have sufficient 

information to make an informed decision. One testing company official 

told us she received an accommodation request accompanied by a note 

on a doctor’s prescription pad that indicated the applicant had ADHD 

without any other information to document the applicant’s limitations on 

the test, thereby making it difficult to grant an accommodation. Officials 

from three testing companies also told us that an applicant’s professional 

evaluator may not have provided enough information to explain why the 

applicant needs an accommodation. They reported receiving evaluations 

without a formal disability diagnosis or evaluations with a diagnosis, but 

no information as to how the diagnosis was reached, leaving them with 

additional questions about the applicant’s condition. In addition, some 

testing company officials said it can be difficult to explain to applicants 

that having a diagnosis does not mean they have a qualifying disability 

that entitles them to testing accommodations under the ADA. One testing 

company official said she spends a great deal of time explaining to 

applicants that she needs information on their functional limitations in 

addition to a disability diagnosis. 

Testing company officials also told us that evaluating requests for certain 

types of disabilities or accommodations can be difficult. Some testing 

company officials told us that evaluating requests from gifted applicants 

or those with learning disabilities are among the most challenging. Such 

applicants may not have a documented history of their disability or of 

receiving accommodations, making it more difficult to determine their 

current needs. One testing company official told us that greater scrutiny is 

applied to requests from applicants without a history of accommodations 

because they question why the applicant was not previously diagnosed 

and suddenly requests accommodations for the test. Officials from two 

testing companies stated that determining whether to provide for the use 

of assistive technologies or certain formats of the test can be difficult. One 

testing company official stated that allowing test takers to use their own 

software or laptop might result in information, such as test questions, 

being left on a test taker’s computer, which could compromise future 

administrations of the test since some questions may be reused. The 

official from the other company stated that providing the exam in a 

nonstandard format may change the exam itself and make the 

comparability of scores more difficult. 

Officials from two testing companies and an attorney representing some 

of the testing companies included in our study also told us they have 

concerns about testing companies being required to provide 
Page 22 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

accommodations that best ensure that applicants’ test results reflect the 

applicants’ aptitudes rather than their disabilities since they believe the 

ADA only requires testing companies to provide reasonable 

accommodations. In a brief filed by several testing companies and 

professional licensing boards supporting NCBE’s request that the 

Supreme Court review the Court of Appeals decision in the Enyart case, 

they stated that a “best ensure” standard would fundamentally alter how 

standardized tests are administered since they would have to provide 

whatever accommodation the test taker believes will best ensure his or 

her success on the test. They stated this would skew nationwide 

standardized test results, call into question the fairness and validity of the 

tests, and impose new costs on testing organizations. 

Federal enforcement of laws and regulations governing testing 

accommodations primarily occurs in response to citizen complaints30 that 

are submitted to federal agencies. While Justice has overall responsibility 

for enforcement of Title III of the ADA,31 which includes Section 309 that 

is specifically related to examinations offered by private testing 

companies, other federal agencies such as Education and HHS have 

enforcement responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act for testing 

companies that receive federal financial assistance from them. Justice 

can pursue any complaints it receives alleging discrimination under the 

ADA, regardless of the funding status of the respondent, but Education 

and HHS can only pursue complaints filed against entities receiving 

 

30In this report, we will refer to what Justice considers “citizen complaints” as “complaints.” 

3142 U.S.C. § 12188. 

Federal Enforcement 

Is Largely ComplaintDriven, and Justice 

Lacks a Strategic 

Approach to Ensure 

Testing Company 

Compliance 

Enforcement of Testing 

Company Compliance 

Generally Occurs in 

Response to Complaints, 

and Involves Multiple 

Agencies 
Page 23 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

financial assistance from them at the time the alleged discrimination 

occurred. Education and HHS provided financial assistance to 4 of the 10 

testing companies included in our study in at least 1 of the 4 fiscal years 

included in our analysis, fiscal years 2007 to 2010. 

When Justice receives a complaint that alleges discrimination involving 

testing accommodations it may investigate the complaint, refer it to 

another federal agency that has jurisdiction, or close it with no further 

action. After Justice reviews the complaint at in-take, it advises 

complainants that it might not make a determination about whether or not 

a violation has occurred in each instance. Justice officials explained that 

the department does not have the resources to make a determination 

regarding each complaint given the large volume and broad range of ADA 

complaints the agency receives. Specifically, Justice’s Disability Rights 

Section of the Civil Rights Division reported receiving 13,140 complaints, 

opening 3,141 matters for investigation, and opening 41 cases for 

litigation32 related to the ADA in fiscal years 2007 to 2010. Due to the 

limitations of Justice’s data systems, it is not possible to systematically 

analyze Justice’s complaint data to determine the total related to testing 

accommodations. However, using a key word search, Justice identified 

59 closed complaints related to testing accommodations involving 8 of the 

10 testing companies included in our study for fiscal years 2007 to 2010.33

Based on our review of available complaint information, we found that 

Justice closed 29 complaints without action, 2 were withdrawn by the 

complainant, and 1 was referred to a U.S. Attorney. However, we were 

 

32A “citizen complaint” (or “citizen mail”) is defined as a correspondence containing 

allegations that has been: (1) submitted to Justice by an individual or entity on behalf of an 

individual and (2) assigned an identification number in the Correspondence Tracking 

System. A matter is defined as an activity that has been assigned an identification number 

in the Interactive Case Management system but has not resulted in the filing of a 

complaint, indictment, or information in court––for example, the investigation of a 

complaint or an allegation of discrimination. Justice has closed matters related to testing 

accommodations through settlement agreements. A case is defined as an activity that has 

been assigned an identification number that has resulted in the filing of a complaint, 

indictment, or information in court. To date, Justice has not fully litigated any testing 

accommodations cases, but Justice reported that it has obtained consent decrees from 

federal courts on this subject. 

33Justice identified 24 additional closed complaints that are not included in the total. We 

determined that 12 of these complaints were not relevant to the scope of our study based 

on a review of the complaint files, and we were unable to determine whether 12 

complaints were relevant to our scope because Justice could not locate the complaint 

files. 
Page 24 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

unable to determine the final disposition of 27 complaints given 

information gaps in Justice’s data systems and paper files. In addition to 

identifying closed complaints, Justice identified five closed matters related 

to testing accommodations for three of the testing companies included in 

our study for fiscal years 2007 to 2010. One of these resulted in a 

settlement34 with the testing company that would allow the complainant 

to take the exam with accommodations, two were closed based on 

insufficient evidence provided by the complainant, and the outcome of the 

remaining two could not be determined based on limited information in 

Justice’s files. 

Education and HHS officials told us they review each incoming complaint 

to determine whether it should be investigated further. For Education and 

HHS to conduct further investigations, the complaint must involve an 

issue over which the agencies have jurisdiction and be filed in a timely 

manner.35 Eligible complaints are then investigated to determine whether 

a testing company violated the Rehabilitation Act. Similar to Justice, 

Education did not track complaints specifically involving testing 

accommodations. However, Education was able to identify a subset of 

complaints related to testing accommodations for the testing companies 

included in our sample by comparing our list of testing companies against 

all of their complaints. For fiscal years 2007 to 2010, Education identified 

41 complaints related to testing accommodations involving six of the 

testing companies included in our study. Based on a review of closure 

letters sent to complainants, we found that Education did not consider 

testing company compliance for most complaints. Specifically, Education 

determined that it did not have the authority to investigate 14 complaints 

involving testing companies that were not receiving federal financial 

assistance at the time of the alleged violation.36 Education closed 14 

other complaints without making a determination about compliance 

because the complaint was not filed on time, was withdrawn, or involved 

 

34Justice identified an additional matter regarding one of the testing companies included in 

our study. However, we were unable to review the paper files associated with this matter 

because it was not closed at the time of our review. The matter resulted in a settlement in 

September 2011. 

35Complaints must generally be filed within filed within 180 days of the date the alleged 

discrimination occurred. 

36For each of these complaints, Education referred the complaint directly to Justice or 

advised the complainant to contact Justice regarding the complaint. 
Page 25 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

an allegation pending with the testing company or the courts. Based on its 

investigation of the remaining 13 complaints, Education did not identify 

any instances in which testing companies were not in compliance with the 

Rehabilitation Act. HHS identified one complaint against a testing 

company included in our study, but it was withdrawn by the complainant 

prior to a determination being made. 

Justice’s regulations implementing Section 309 of the ADA provide the 

criteria for its enforcement efforts,37 and it has recently taken steps to 

clarify ADA requirements pertaining to testing accommodations by adding 

new provisions to regulations. In June 2008—prior to passage of the ADA 

Amendments Act, Justice issued a notice of proposed rulemaking,38 and 

issued final regulations in September 2010 following a public hearing and 

comment period.39 In issuing those regulations, Justice stated that it relied 

on its history of enforcement efforts, research, and body of knowledge 

regarding testing accommodations. Justice officials told us they added 

new provisions to the regulations based on reports—detailed in 

complaints and anecdotal information from lawyers and others in the 

disability rights community—that raised questions about what 

documentation is reasonable and appropriate for testing companies to 

request. The final regulations, which took effect in March 2011, added 

provisions clarifying that testing companies’ requests for documentation 

should be reasonable and limited to the need for the accommodation, that 

testing companies should give considerable weight to documentation 

showing prior accommodations, and they should respond in a timely 

manner to accommodations requests. Justice provided further clarification 

of these provisions in the guidance that accompanied the final rule.40

Since the final regulations took effect, Justice has also filed statements of 

interest in two recent court cases to clarify and enforce its regulations.41 In 

both of these cases, test takers with visual disabilities filed lawsuits 

 

3742 U.S.C. § 12186(b) requires Justice to issues regulations for Title III of the ADA. 

3873 Fed. Reg. 34,508 (June 17, 2008). 

3975 Fed. Reg. 56,236. 

4028 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A. 

41See Elder v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, 2011 WL 672662 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 

16, 2011) and Jones v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, 2011 WL 3321507 (D.Vt., 

Aug. 2, 2011). 

Justice Has Clarified ADA 

Requirements for Testing 

Accommodations but 

Lacks a Strategic 

Approach to Enforcement 
Page 26 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

seeking to use computer assistive technology to take a standardized test, 

rather than other accommodations that the testing company thought were 

reasonable, including Braille, large print, and audio formats. In these 

statements of interest, Justice discussed the background of the ADA and 

its regulations and stated that the accommodations offered to those test 

takers should be analyzed under the “best ensure” standard. Justice also 

pointed out that Congress intended for the interpretation of the ADA to 

evolve over time as new technology was developed that could enhance 

options for students with disabilities. In addition, Justice stated that it had 

made clear in regulatory guidance that appropriate auxiliary aids should 

keep pace with emerging technology. 

While these actions may help clarify what is required under the ADA, we 

found that Justice is not making full use of available data and other 

information to target its enforcement activity. For example, incoming 

complaints are the primary mechanism Justice relies on to focus its 

enforcement efforts, and it makes decisions on which complaints to 

pursue primarily on a case-by-case basis. However, Justice does not 

utilize information gathered on all its complaints to develop a systematic 

approach to enforcement that would extend beyond one case. Officials 

told us that the facts and circumstances of every complaint are unique, 

but that in determining whether to pursue a particular complaint, they 

consider a number of factors, including available resources and the merits 

of the complaint. Officials also said they may group complaints, for 

example, waiting until they receive a number of complaints related to the 

same testing company before deciding whether to pursue them. They 

also told us they may pursue a complaint if it highlights an aspect of the 

ADA that has not yet been addressed. For example, Justice officials told 

us the department investigated one recent complaint because it 

demonstrated how someone who was diagnosed with a disability later in 

life and did not have a long history of receiving classroom 

accommodations was eligible for testing accommodations under the ADA. 

While these may be the appropriate factors for Justice to consider in 

determining whether to pursue each individual complaint, we found that 

the agency has not given sufficient consideration to whether its 

enforcement activities related to all complaints, when taken in the 

aggregate, make the most strategic use of its limited resources. 

In addition, although Justice collects some data on the ADA complaints it 

receives, it does not systematically utilize these data to inform its overall 

enforcement activities in this area. Information on incoming complaints 

are entered into the Justice’s Correspondence Tracking System, and data 

on complaints that it pursues, also known as matters, are entered into its 
Page 27 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

Interactive Case Management system. Justice officials told us that they 

do not systematically review information from these data systems given 

system limitations. For example, Justice is able to generate reports on 

complaints and matters associated with a specific statute (e.g., Title II or 

III of the ADA), but because no additional data on the type of complaint 

are entered into their systems it is not possible to generate a list of 

complaints and matters related to specific issues, such as testing 

accommodations. Additionally, because the two systems do not interface, 

Justice is unable to determine the disposition of all complaints. Of the five 

closed matters we reviewed, we were only able to track one back to the 

original complaint in the Correspondence Tracking System. In the 

absence of data that can be systematically analyzed, Justice relies on its 

institutional knowledge of complaints and matters to inform its 

enforcement efforts. For example, Justice officials told us they know 

which testing companies are more frequently cited in complaints. While 

institutional knowledge can be a useful tool to inform decisions, it may 

leave the agency at risk of losing critical knowledge. For example, with 

the recent retirement of two key officials from the Civil Rights Division’s 

Disability Rights Section, Justice has lost a major component of its 

institutional knowledge related to testing accommodations. We provided 

Justice with the names of testing companies included in our review to 

identify complaints and matters in their systems related to these 

companies. While Justice officials said they have conducted similar 

searches in reference to a specific complaint, they have not conducted 

systematic searches of their data systems to inform their overall 

enforcement efforts. In the absence of systematic reviews of information 

on complaints within their data systems, Justice may be missing out on 

opportunities to be strategic in identifying enforcement actions that would 

extend beyond one complaint or that would address widespread issues 

related to how testing accommodations decisions are made by testing 

companies. 

In addition to not making full use of its complaint data, Justice has not 

effectively coordinated with other agencies to inform its enforcement 

efforts. While Justice has broad responsibility for enforcing compliance 

with the ADA, Justice officials told us that they were not aware that 

Education and HHS were receiving and pursuing testing accommodations 

complaints for testing companies that were recipients of federal funding. 

Justice officials stated that they have not had regular meetings or 

exchanges related to testing accommodations with officials from 

Education or HHS. Officials from HHS also told us that relevant federal 

agencies provide expertise to one another when necessary, but that no 

formal or regular coordination meetings related to testing 
Page 28 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

accommodations have been held with Justice or Education. By not 

coordinating with other federal agencies, Justice is limiting its ability to 

assess the full range of potential compliance issues related to testing 

accommodations. 

As part of its enforcement authority, the ADA authorizes Justice to 

conduct periodic compliance reviews.42 Justice reviews testing company 

compliance with the ADA in the course of investigating complaints, and 

officials said they could conduct a compliance review if they received a 

series of complaints against a particular company. However, Justice 

officials told us they have not initiated any compliance reviews that 

include a thorough examination of a testing company’s policies, practices, 

and records related to testing accommodations. Justice officials said it 

would be difficult to undertake a thorough compliance review because 

testing companies are not required to cooperate with such a review, and 

the agency lacks the authority to subpoena testing companies. However, 

in the absence of attempting to conduct such a compliance review, 

Justice is not in a position to fully assess whether this enforcement 

mechanism could prove beneficial to them. 

In its 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, Justice states that “outreach and 

technical assistance will continue to play a vital role to ensure compliance 

with the civil rights statutes.”43 However, Justice’s efforts to provide 

technical assistance related to testing accommodations have been 

limited. Justice officials told us they provide technical assistance by 

responding to calls that come into the ADA hotline or directly to the 

Disability Rights Section. For example, a disability advocate may reach 

out to an attorney to discuss a particular student’s situation. Justice 

officials told us they have discussed testing accommodations at meetings 

and conferences when invited to attend, although they have not made 

any presentations in recent years. Justice provides some guidance 

regarding testing accommodations in its ADA Title III Technical 

Assistance Guide. However, since the guide was last updated in 1993, it 

does not reflect recent ADA amendments, regulatory changes, or 

changes in accommodations available to test takers based on advances 

in technology. Justice officials also told us that they have not recently 

 

4242 U.S.C. § 12188(b). 

4342 U.S.C. § 12206 authorizes Justice to issue technical assistance under Title III of the 

ADA. 
Page 29 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

conducted outreach with testing companies. They reported that their 

resources have been focused on issuing regulations related to both 

testing accommodations and other topic areas. Testing company officials 

we interviewed reported that they had limited or no interaction with 

Justice, and one official said she would welcome more interaction with 

Justice to ensure the company was interpreting the laws correctly. An 

attorney who works with multiple testing companies included in our study 

told us that, because Justice only reviews complaints, which represent a 

small fraction of all testing accommodations requested, it may not have 

an accurate view of how often testing companies grant accommodations. 

Similarly, Justice has not leveraged its complaint and case data to target 

outreach and technical assistance based on the types of complaints most 

frequently filed. For example, Justice has not analyzed its complaint files 

to determine if multiple complaints filed had similar themes so that they 

could target their outreach to testing companies to clarify how to apply the 

regulations in these cases. Without targeted outreach, Justice misses 

opportunities to limit or prevent testing company noncompliance with the 

ADA. 

Given the critical role that standardized tests play in making decisions on 

higher education admissions, licensure, and job placement, federal laws 

require that individuals with disabilities are able to access these tests in a 

manner that allows them to accurately demonstrate their skill level. While 

testing companies reported providing thousands of test takers with 

accommodations in the most recent testing year, test takers and disability 

advocates continue to raise questions about whether testing companies 

are complying with the law in making their determinations. Justice, as the 

primary enforcement agency under the ADA, has taken steps to clarify 

how testing companies should make their determinations, but its 

enforcement lacks the strategic and coordinated approach necessary to 

ensure compliance. Without a systematic approach to reviewing 

complaints that it receives, Justice cannot assure that all complaints are 

consistently considered and that it is effectively targeting its limited 

resources to the highest priority enforcement activities. Continuing to 

target enforcement on a case-by-case basis does not allow Justice to 

consider what enforcement activities could extend beyond one case. 

Additionally, in the absence of coordination with other federal agencies, 

Justice is missing opportunities to strengthen enforcement by assessing 

the full range of potential compliance issues related to testing 

accommodations. Justice’s largely reactive approach to enforcement in 

this area may also limit its ability to address problems before trends of 

noncompliance are well established. After revising its testing 

Conclusions 
Page 30 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

accommodations regulations, Justice did not conduct outreach to testing 

companies or update its technical assistance materials to ensure the 

requirements were being applied consistently. Since we found testing 

companies believe their practices are already in compliance with the new 

regulatory requirements, it is unclear whether these changes will better 

protect the rights of students with disabilities. In order to ensure 

individuals with disabilities have equal opportunity to pursue their 

education and career goals, it is imperative for Justice to establish a 

credible enforcement presence to detect, correct, and prevent violations. 

We recommend to the Attorney General that Justice take steps to 

develop a strategic approach to target its enforcement efforts related to 

testing accommodations. For example, the strategic approach could 

include (1) analyzing its complaint and case data to prioritize enforcement 

and technical assistance, (2) working with the Secretaries of Education 

and HHS to develop a formal coordination strategy, and (3) updating 

technical assistance materials to reflect current requirements. 

We provided a draft of this report to Justice, Education, and HHS for 

review and comment. In written comments, Justice agreed with our 

recommendation, stating that its efforts to ensure the rights of individuals 

with disabilities are best served through a strategic use of its authority to 

enforce the ADA’s testing provisions. Justice highlighted some actions the 

agency will pursue to enhance enforcement in this area. With regard to 

analyzing its data, Justice stated that it utilizes complaint and case data 

through all stages of its work and makes decisions about which 

complaints to pursue based on ongoing and prior work. Also, Justice 

stated that it is looking for ways to improve its recordkeeping with respect 

to completed investigations and cases. While improving its recordkeeping 

is a positive action, we believe it is important for Justice to systematically 

review its data to strategically enforce the law. As we stated in our report, 

Justice has not utilized its data to develop a systematic approach to 

enforcement that would extend beyond one case, nor has it given 

sufficient consideration to whether its enforcement activities, when taken 

in the aggregate, make the most strategic use of its limited resources. 

Justice agreed to pursue discussions with both Education and HHS on 

the investigation and resolution of complaints about testing 

accommodations, and agreed to develop additional technical assistance 

materials on testing accommodations in the near future. Justice’s written 

comments appear in appendix II. 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 31 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

In written comments, Education committed to working with Justice to 

coordinate efforts to ensure equity in testing for all students, including 

students with disabilities, consistent with the laws they enforce. 

Education’s written comments appear in appendix III. 

Justice and Education also provided technical comments, which were 

incorporated into the report as appropriate. 

HHS had no comments on the draft report. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to relevant 

congressional committees, the Attorney General, the Secretary of 

Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other 

interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on 

GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IV. 

George A. Scott 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 32 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

The objectives of this report were to determine (1) what types of 

accommodations individuals with disabilities apply for and receive, and 

how schools assist them; (2) what factors testing companies consider 

when making decisions about requests for testing accommodations; (3) 

what challenges students and testing companies experience in receiving 

and granting testing accommodations; and (4) how federal agencies 

enforce compliance with relevant federal disability laws and regulations. 

For our study, we focused our review on a nongeneralizeable sample of 

11 tests administered by 10 testing companies. We chose tests that are 

commonly used to gain admission into undergraduate, graduate, and 

professional programs and to obtain professional certification or licensure. 

We included the SAT and ACT in our study as these are the 2 most 

commonly used standardized tests for admission into undergraduate 

programs. To determine which graduate level and certification or 

licensure tests to include in our study, we reviewed data from the 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to establish 

the fields of study with the largest populations of students graduating with 

a masters or first professional degree. We also reviewed IPEDS data to 

determine the top three fields of study in which students with disabilities 

are enrolled. Based on these data, we identified 5 graduate and 

professional admissions tests, and 4 corresponding professional 

certification tests that could be required of students graduating with 

degrees in these fields. The fields of study included business, education, 

law, medicine, and pharmacy. To inform our findings, we interviewed 

officials from seven of the testing companies included in our study, and 

two companies submitted written responses to questions we provided. 

One testing company declined to participate in our study. (See table 1 for 

a list of the testing companies and tests included in our study.) The views 

of the testing company officials we spoke with or received responses from 

cannot be generalized to all testing companies that provide 

accommodations to applicants with disabilities. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 33 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

Table 1: Tests Included in Our Study 

Test Testing company 

Participated in 

study Provided data 

Declined to 

participate 

Undergraduate admission 

ACT ACT, Inc. X X 

SAT The College Board X X 

Graduate and professional admission 

GRE Educational Testing Service 

(ETS) 

X X 

Graduate Management 

Admission Test (GMAT) 

Graduate Management 

Admission Council (GMAC) 

X X 

Medical College Admission Test 

(MCAT) 

Association of American 

Medical Colleges (AAMC) 

X X 

Law School Admission Test 

(LSAT) 

Law School Admission Council 

(LSAC) 

 X 

Pharmacy College Admission 

Test (PCAT) 

Pearson, Inc. X X 

Professional certification 

Multistate Professional 

Responsibility Examination 

(MPRE) 

National Conference of Bar 

Examiners (NCBE) and ACT, 

Inca

X X 

North American Pharmacist 

Licensure Examination 

(NAPLEX) 

National Association of Boards 

of Pharmacy (NABP) 

X X 

The PRAXIS Series ETS X X 

United States Medical Licensing 

Examination (USMLE) 

National Board of Medical 

Examiners (NBME)b

 

X X 

Source: GAO. 

a

NCBE contracts ACT to review and make determinations regarding testing accommodations for the 

MPRE; however, NCBE provides input as necessary and has oversight responsibility. 

b

We also met with the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. (FSMB) in 

discussing the USMLE. However, FSMB is not included in this table since NBME is responsible for 

making all decisions related to testing accommodations. 

To determine the types of accommodations requested by individuals with 

disabilities and granted by testing companies, we reviewed data provided 

by testing companies on accommodations requested and granted, 

interviewed testing company officials, interviewed disability experts, and 

reviewed literature to understand the types of accommodations applicants 

with disabilities might require. GAO provided testing companies with a 

standardized data collection instrument that covered a range of topics 

including the types of disabilities students have and the types of 

accommodations they requested and were granted in the most recent 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 34 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

testing year. We asked for data on the number of accommodations 

requested and granted by type of accommodation and type of disability. 

In some cases, testing companies did not collect data in the manner 

requested by GAO and instead provided alternate data to help inform our 

study.1

 Because of the variance in how testing companies collect data on 

disability type, we aggregated data into broad disability categories. We 

identified the following limitations with data provided by the testing 

companies, in addition to those noted throughout the report. We excluded 

data testing companies provided on applicants with multiple disabilities 

because these data were reported differently across testing companies. 

For example, one testing company provided a disability category called 

multiple disabilities while another told us that, in cases where an applicant 

has more than one disability, they capture in their data the disability most 

relevant to the accommodation. In general, testing companies’ data 

reflect those requests that were complete, not those for which a decision 

was pending in the testing year for which data were provided. In our data 

request, we asked questions about the reliability of the data, such as 

whether there are audits of the data or routine quality control procedures 

in place. Based on their responses to these questions, we believe the 

data provided by the testing companies were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report. 

To understand how schools assist individuals in applying for 

accommodations, we interviewed officials from a nongeneralizable 

sample of 8 high schools and 13 postsecondary schools and eight 

individuals with disabilities who had applied for testing accommodations. 

(See table 2 for a complete list of schools.) To select schools, we 

reviewed data from Education’s Common Core of Data and IPEDS 

databases and chose a nongeneralizable sample based on 

characteristics such as sector (public and private, including nonprofit and 

for-profit postsecondary), geographic diversity (including urban, suburban, 

and rural settings for high schools), total enrollment, and size of 

population of students with disabilities. We also reviewed publicly 

available lists of colleges and universities to identify postsecondary 

 

1

For example, in responding to our data request, the College Board noted that there may 

be up to a 2 percent variance in the numbers reported compared with actual numbers due 

to the data systems used to respond to the request. NBME's data on the types of 

accommodations requested and granted include some data on personal item exceptions, 

such as food and medical devices, which NBME does not consider to be 

accommodations. In addition, NBME did not provide data on all types of accommodations 

for which requests were made and granted. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 35 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

schools that offered academic programs in the fields corresponding to the 

tests we chose. We identified individuals with disabilities to interview 

based on referrals from experts and school officials and selected them 

based on their representation of a range of disabilities and tests for which 

they sought accommodations. 

Table 2: Schools Interviewed 

School name Location 

High schools 

Frenchtown High School Frenchtown, Montana 

Kelly High School Chicago, Illinois 

The Lab School Washington, D.C. 

Notre Dame Preparatory School Scottsdale, Arizona 

Oakdale High School Oakdale, California 

Palisades Charter High School Pacific Palisades, California 

Vidor High School Vidor, Texas 

Walter Johnson High School Bethesda, Maryland 

Postsecondary schools 

American University Washington College of Law Washington, D.C. 

Carleton College Northfield, Minnesota 

DeVry University Various locations 

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania Edinboro, Pennsylvania 

Golden Gate University School of Law San Francisco, California 

Harvard Graduate School of Education Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois 

University of Arizona and College of Pharmacy Tucson, Arizona 

University of Connecticut and School of Law Storrs, Connecticut 

University of Denver Denver, Colorado 

University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 

University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 

University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 

Source: GAO. 

To determine the factors testing companies consider when making their 

decisions, we reviewed policies and procedures for requesting 

accommodations found on testing companies’ Web sites and reviewed 

relevant federal laws and regulations pertaining to testing companies. 

However, we did not evaluate whether these policies and procedures as 

written or described to us in interviews—either on their face or as applied 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 36 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

in the context of responding to individual requests for accommodations—

were in compliance with relevant laws or regulations. Accordingly, 

statements in this report that describe the policies and procedures used 

by testing companies to review and respond to requests for 

accommodations, should not be read as indicating that testing companies 

are either in or out of compliance with applicable federal laws. We also 

conducted interviews with seven testing companies and reviewed written 

responses to our questions from two companies that declined our request 

for an interview. One company declined to participate in our study. 

To identify the challenges that applicants and testing companies may 

experience in receiving and granting accommodations, we interviewed 

eight individuals with disabilities to learn about their experiences in 

obtaining accommodations, interviewed testing company officials and 

reviewed written responses from testing companies about the challenges 

they face in granting accommodations, interviewed disability advocacy 

groups and researchers with expertise in various types of disabilities, and 

reviewed literature. The testing companies that participated in our study 

reviewed draft statements in this report, and their comments were 

incorporated as appropriate. 

To determine how federal agencies enforce compliance with relevant 

federal laws and regulations, we reviewed pertinent laws and regulations 

to identify the responsibilities of federal agencies and interviewed officials 

from Justice, Education, and HHS to learn about the actions these 

agencies take to enforce compliance. In addition, we obtained data from 

Justice, Education, and HHS on the number of closed complaints they 

received between fiscal years 2007 and 2010 related to testing 

accommodations for the 10 testing companies included in our study. We 

also reviewed selected court cases regarding testing accommodations. 

Since Justice receives the majority of complaints, we reviewed all of 

Justice’s available paper files associated with complaints and matters 

pertaining to the testing companies in our study. We reviewed the paper 

files to better understand what action Justice takes in responding to 

complaints and enforcing testing company compliance. We also reviewed 

all of Education’s closure letters and HHS’ complaint and closure letters, 

pertaining to testing companies in our study from fiscal years 2007 to 

2010, to better understand what action these agencies take. We reviewed 

existing information about the data and interviewed agency officials 

knowledgeable at Justice, Education, and HHS. We identified some 

limitations with the data as we described in our report. Justice reported 

receiving 13,140 ADA-related complaints between fiscal years 2007 and 

2010. Justice used key word searches of the data to identify 59 closed 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 37 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

complaints related to testing accommodations involving 8 of the 10 testing 

companies included in our study. Justice also identified five closed 

matters. We were unable to determine the final disposition of 27 

complaints due to gaps in Justice’s data systems and paper files. By 

comparing our list of testing companies against their complaints, 

Education was able to identify 41 complaints. HHS was able to identify 

only 1 complaint that was later withdrawn. Due to limitations with the data, 

we cannot generalize the results of our file review. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2010 to November 

2011, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 38 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 39 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 40 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 41 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 42 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 43 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Education 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 44 GAO-12-40 Testing Accommodations 

George A. Scott, Director, (202) 512-7215, or scottg@gao.gov 

In addition to the individual above, Debra Prescott (Assistant Director), 

Anjali Tekchandani (Analyst-in-Charge), Jennifer Cook, Nisha Hazra, and 

Justine Lazaro made significant contributions to this report. Jean 

McSween provided methodological support; Jessica Botsford provided 

legal support; Susan Bernstein assisted in report development; and Mimi 

Nguyen assisted with graphics. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(131043)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper