Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing Exams Language Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board opposes NCLEX translation mandate unless law excludes nursing board from implementation
Summary
The board voted to oppose Assembly Bill 667 unless amended to exclude the Board of Registered Nursing from a requirement that applicants be allowed free interpreters for NCLEX licensing exams, citing logistical and validity concerns with translating the computerized adaptive NCLEX exam.
The Board of Registered Nursing voted March 20 to oppose Assembly Bill 667 unless the bill is amended to exclude the board from its implementation requirements. AB 667 would require Department of Consumer Affairs boards to permit licensing‑exam applicants who cannot read, speak or write English to use an interpreter at no cost for state‑administered examinations and to post multilingual notice on board websites.
Board staff and members raised practical objections to applying the requirement to the NCLEX, the National Council Licensure Examination used for RN licensure. Marissa Clark, the board's chief of legislative affairs, described the NCLEX as a computerized adaptive test owned by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) and administered by Pearson VUE. She said translations and validated items are resource‑intensive to produce and that NCSBN has previously translated the NCLEX into other languages only after a multi‑year process.
"To be honest, there's thousands of questions," Clark said, explaining that translation for adaptive delivery requires careful validation. Board members also noted that the bill's interpreter eligibility rules would exclude practicing RNs and nursing students from serving as interpreters, raising concerns about accurate translation of technical terms.
Board member Patricia Wynne said she supported the bill's intent but warned of likely high costs and operational complexity if the Department of Consumer Affairs were required to retain interpreters for many languages.
After staff discussion and a public comment period with no WebEx callers on the bill, the board moved to oppose the measure unless amended to specifically exclude the Board of Registered Nursing from the statute's implementation timeline. The board's motion passed 5‑0.
Board staff indicated they and DCA would continue to work with NCSBN and Pearson VUE on language access but said the statutory timeline and the technical constraints of the NCLEX make the bill as written impracticable for BRN to implement.
