A controversial court settlement last March forced the Educational Testing Service (ETS) to remove the notation from graduate exam reports that alerted admissions officers to special test conditions including untimed testing due to learning disabilities.

Now, as a result of the settlement, the College Board, which owns the SAT, must also review its own SAT score reports. Without the notations, colleges will have no way to distinguish between timed and untimed exams-leaving some Harvard administrators wary of potential abuses of the testing process.

The court settlement in the ETS case had no direct impact on the SAT exam, which is only administered by ETS but is owned and developed by the College Board. Nonetheless, the College Board was asked to form a panel to study the issues of flagged scores and untimed testing for the SAT.

The panel decision was meant to avoid lengthy court deliberations and the College Board agreed to release a recommendation for score reports by this time next year. But everything from the panel's composition to the impact of its ultimate recommendation remains controversial, and those close to the process warn that reaching a fair outcome might take much longer than planned.

"We've been given a fifteen-month window [by the Court], which is next year at about this time," said Executive Director of the College Board's SAT program, Brian O'Reilly. "Research tends to take longer. You have to be patient. The field of education tends to move slowly."

O'Reilly enumerated the complexity of issues the panel must investigate, including the differences between standard and non-standard administration, the exam's ability to predict college performance and the programs in place to accommodate disabled students.

He said accurate research would be essential to the panel's decision, which will inevitably be held to careful scrutiny by both the testing services and disability advocates.

The proposal to change score reporting arises from the concern that disabled individuals are hurt in the application process when admissions officers notice the conditions under which their exams were taken-a concern supported by the court in the original case against ETS.

In that case, the plaintiff, Mark Breimhorst, blamed his rejection from business schools on the flagged scores and charged ETS with violating anti-discrimination laws. Disability advocacy groups including The International Dyslexia Association and the Californians for Disability Rights subsequently joined the case.

Similar arguments have been made about the SAT, although no court ruling has affected score reports.

The consequences of a panel decision in favor of unflagged SAT score reporting may mean that within two years, Harvard University's Office of Admissions may put less trust in the validity of score reports.

"There will be no way to know under what conditions the exams were administered," said Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons '67. "Anything that makes the test less valid is of real concern."

Fitzsimmons said removing flagged scores might endanger the validity of the tests since students without disability could use the change in their favor.

"There are rumors of a cottage industry where students who do not have disabilities and never have received assistance before can receive extended time [after being classified as disabled]," Fitzsimmons said.

Such a fear is dismissed by many, though.

Executive Director of the International Dyslexia Association J. Thomas Viall said he does not foresee abuse of the un-flagged score reporting.

"It's a manufactured fear. My organization has been around for fifty two years is that parents don't want their children labeled with a disability," he said.