Arbitration ordered in ACT-score suit

Jump to 20 on test prompted review

A Pulaski County circuit judge on Tuesday ordered a 19-year-old Little Rock college sophomore to submit his grievances with the ACT college-readiness assessment test to binding arbitration.

Samuel Coleman IV sued in June after Iowa-based testing company ACT Inc. threatened to invalidate his results and questioned how he had obtained a score of 20 on an April 2013 test. The test is used by colleges and universities to determine admissions.

The testing company's lawyer, Baxter Drennon of Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, argued Tuesday that Coleman was required by the Federal Arbitration Act to submit to an arbitrator under the contract he entered into by registering for the test and taking it.

Coleman's attorney, Willard Proctor Jr., said his client didn't object to the process but did not want an arbiter to have the final word.

"We've always agreed to arbitrate," Proctor said. "We just don't think it should be binding."

Judge Chris Piazza ordered Coleman's circuit court proceedings stayed until arbitration is complete. Coleman, who did not attend the hearing, had wanted the judge to bar the testing company from canceling his results.

Coleman had twice before taken the exam, scoring 16 and 15 in 2012, according to the lawsuit. He improved to a 20 score last year after completing a testing preparatory program offered by Pulaski County Youth Services, the filing states.

The results qualified him for admission to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, where he is in his second year of studies.

A 36 is a perfect score.

According to ACT's response to the lawsuit, Coleman's 15 score put him in the 16th percentile of test-takers and the 20 score put him in the 48th percentile, a "significant increase."

The score increase triggered a review by company security, which found that Coleman and another test-taker had a "large number of identical incorrect responses," 156 out of 215 items, according to the nonprofit testing company. Coleman was one seat to the left of that test-taker, who is not identified in the filings.

The unlikelihood of two participants submitting the same answers, combined with their previous performances on the test, caused the company to question Coleman's results, according to the company's filings.

When the test-maker questioned Coleman's improvement, the company gave him three options to resolve its questions: submit to a new test, submit information about his improvement to a review panel or challenge the company's findings in binding arbitration.

Coleman chose to submit information about his high school grades and the preparatory program, but the company review panel was not satisfied with what he had submitted and threatened to cancel his score, according to the suit.

Metro on 10/08/2014

Upcoming Events