Latest news with #BrandonStallings
Reuters
06-06-2025
- Business
- Reuters
California's February bar exam mess is costing millions to clean up
June 6 (Reuters) - The State Bar of California said on Thursday that it has hired a consulting firm to review the scoring of its February bar exam, adding to the millions the organization has spent to clean up mess from the botched test rollout. State bar trustees approved a $185,000 contract with the Human Resources Research Organization to look at how the February exam was scored and investigate whether test takers with disabilities received their approved accommodations such as extra time on the exam or a private testing room. While the contract amount is relatively small, it is part of the more than $6 million the organization is spending for February's exam problems and to ensure the upcoming July exam goes smoothly. The state bar did not immediately provide comment on Friday about the growing costs, but it has said that it will do all that it can to address February's problems. The February exam — the debut of California's hybrid remote and in-person exam that did not include any components of the national bar exam the state had used for decades — was marred by technological and logistical problems. The investigation is a 'critical step to independently assess scoring and accommodation concerns raised by applicants,' said State Bar Board of Trustees Chair Brandon Stallings in a prepared statement. The state bar launched the development of its own test in 2024, after its fund for administering the exam was projected to reach insolvency in 2026. Using its own exam was expected to save the state bar up to $3.8 million annually because it would not have to rent out large conference spaces. Instead, the new exam has become a financial drain. The California Supreme Court has ordered the state to return to in-person testing in July and restore use of the Multistate Bar Exam — the 200 multiple-choice section of the national bar exam designed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. The state bar, which has an $8 million budget this year to cover its costs for administering the exam and the admissions process for lawyers seeking to practice in California, said it will cost about $720,000 to return to the MBE, $1.7 million to rent out July testing locations, and more than $1 million to hire proctors. The state bar has also approved $4.9 million in fee waivers that will enable those who withdrew from or failed the February exam to retake the bar at no additional cost. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson said in May that she will step down in July, citing the bungled rollout of the new exam. The state bar has also sued the company that provided the testing platform for the February test over the many tech problems. Human Resources Research Organization is expected to complete its scoring review prior to the July bar exam, according to a state bar memo. The investigation into the delivery of testing accommodations is expected to be completed by September 30. February examinees have repeatedly raised concerns over how the exams were scored and the lack of promised testing accommodations in public comments during state bar meetings. And 13 test takers went from failing to passing after the state bar uncovered scoring mistakes. Another 230 are expected to move to passing after the bar enacted a grading change on May 30. Read more: More California bar examinees wrongly told they failed, state bar says Hundreds of California bar exam-takers move from fail to pass with new scoring
Reuters
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
California Bar backs provisional licensing after February exam mess
May 12 - Aspiring lawyers who withdrew from or failed California's disastrous February bar exam may still be eligible to work under the supervision of an experienced attorney until they can pass the attorney licensing exam. The State Bar of California's Board of Trustees on May 9 voted to extend an existing provisional licensure program, which it had enacted in 2020 when the bar exam was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, to give unsuccessful February bar examinees or those who withdrew a period of two years to pass that test while working under supervision. Expanding the provisional licensure program still requires the approval of the California Supreme Court. A court spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday. The high court earlier this month had approved two remedies already requested for by the state bar for the February bar exam problems and previously signed off on the 2020 provisional licensure program during the COVID-19 pandemic. Provisional licensure is one of several remedies February examinees requested in public comments to the board, though many advocated for a program that would allow them to practice under supervision without having to take and pass the bar. The board did not discuss that option on Friday. Board of trustees chairman Brandon Stallings said expansion of the provisional licensure program and several other proposed remedies for February bar examinees strike a balance between protecting the public and helping applicants become licensed. The February exam marked the debut of California's hybrid remote and in-person test without the components of the national bar exam the state has used for decades — a change that was intended to save as much as $3.8 million annually. But the test was marred by widespread technical and logistical problems. Some test takers were not able to log in to the exam at all, while others faced delays, computer crashes, lax exam security, distracting proctors and a copy-and-paste function that didn't work. The state bar later revealed that a small portion of the multiple-choice questions were generated by a third-party contractor using ChatGPT. The state high court has ordered the July exam to be conducted in person and to return to the Multistate Bar Exam — the 200-question multiple choice portion of the exam developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners which the state had used prior to the February test. Those changes are expected to add nearly $6 million in costs. The California Supreme Court had earlier granted the state bar's request to lower the raw score needed to pass the February exam and 'impute' scores for test takers who weren't able to complete significant portions of the two-day exam. That process involves using a test taker's submitted answers to project their performance on questions which were missing. Those remedies helped boost the overall February pass rate to 56%, up from the historical 35% average. Several trustees pointed to that higher pass rate as a reason not to expand the provisional licensure program, saying further remedies undermine the state bar's duty to protect the public. "What's the purpose of a bar exam if you let everybody be provisionally licensed who failed?" said trustee Sarah Good during the Friday meeting. But trustee Raymond Buenaventura said the provisional licensure program offers a path forward for those negatively impacted by the faulty test. "There is no perfect solution," he said. Read more: California scraps new bar exam for July, adjusts scores on botched February test California bar hits pause on provisional lawyer licensing tied to exam meltdown
