In the audit work we did, we were very careful as to where we placed our concern and what our preoccupation was. Our preoccupation was that the school had copies of our tests and used them inappropriately. They used them when they should not have used them. We are not placing blame on the individual students who attended that school; from all the evidence we have, they went there for language training, and the school had a good reputation for training people.
The preoccupation I have here is that when I look at the results, these people who have gone to this training school have a phenomenal rate of exemptions. An exemption is the certification we give people to say that their level of the second language is so good that they never have to be tested again. If your level is really so good that you're exempted, you should have no problem redoing the test, because that's what exemption is supposed to mean.
You asked a question about procedural fairness. We are implementing our statute, which requires us to be satisfied that people meet the requirements of the job; if the requirement of the job is that you have a certain level of bilingualism, we have to be satisfied that you meet that level, and in this case we are not satisfied that it has been met. What we have done with the individual students, however, is give them two years within which to be retested. If there is some special circumstance that we may not have appreciated during our work, we will examine each case individually to see if there should be some other treatment.
Nobody at this point is jeopardized in their current job by those test results. They have a two-year period within which to redo the test, and then they would revert to the results they had before they went to this language training school and had those test results.