Board debates exam bias language and keeps review work for action planning
Loading...
Summary
Board members debated stakeholder evidence that licensure exams contain bias and whether to state that in the strategic plan; after legal risk concerns, members agreed to remove direct 'bias' language from an objective and address exam fairness and subject‑matter recruitment in action plans.
Board discussion on examinations focused on stakeholder claims that national licensing exams contain biased content and the appropriate board response in a strategic plan.
Multiple public comments and the environmental scan raised concerns that exam questions can use unclear language, lack diverse viewpoints and exhibit racial or gender bias. Board members and staff discussed options: enhance recruitment of subject‑matter experts, require DEIA training for exam developers, expand review procedures, and consider alternative pathways to licensure. Some members argued for explicit language to 'address biases in the exams'; others warned that declaring exams biased in a public document could create legal exposure for the board.
After extended discussion, the board agreed to remove explicit 'bias' language from the objective and to move the issue into action planning and committee work where staff can develop specific steps (for example, recruitment strategies, DEIA training for item writers, and systematic exam reviews) and legal counsel can review phrasing before public release.
Board members also discussed alternative pathways and the reality that adopting a national exam affects options; staff noted national exam developers are exploring alternative pathways and the board can participate in those conversations. The board asked staff to return with a refined objective, a list of proposed action items, and a recommended legal review to mitigate risk while addressing equity concerns.
"The inclusion of the word 'possible' does not constitute an admission," one member noted during debate, but members preferred handling detailed findings and corrective steps in action planning rather than the strategic plan itself.
Next steps: staff will workshop objective 3.2 offline, prepare action‑level tasks to address exam fairness and exam development processes, and propose regulatory/committee steps for board review.
