American veterinary schools are allowed to teach differently. The NAVLE tests their graduates identically — on a blueprint written partly by faculty from those same schools. When the country’s only historically Black veterinary college saw its pass rate fall from roughly nine in ten to barely half, no public data could explain why. A new NAVEC study asks why the fit between training and test, and the outcomes it produces, remains impossible to audit.
American veterinary colleges do not all teach the same thing. Federal accreditation lets them specialize, and their curricula vary widely. Yet every graduate sits the same national licensing examination — the NAVLE — built on a blueprint written, in part, by faculty drawn from those same colleges. A new NAVEC study finds that the fit between what schools teach and what the exam tests is never published, that the people who write the questions include those with a stake in the outcome, and that when results diverge sharply — as they have at the country’s only historically Black college of veterinary medicine — no one outside the exam’s owner can say why.
None of the three concerns below is proof of wrongdoing. Each has an innocent explanation. Taken together, they describe a single examination that decides who may practice an entire profession, and whose fairness no independent party can verify.
The AVMA Council on Education — the body that accredits veterinary colleges — expressly permits its schools to track students into different clinical emphases. Under Standard 9, a college may steer one student toward small-animal practice and another toward equine or food-animal work. Two graduates of two accredited programs can therefore reach licensure having spent very different time in very different clinics. That is not a loophole; it is the system working as designed.
Against that permitted variation, the NAVLE is uniform. By ICVA’s own published species weighting, roughly 40% of the species-weighted exam is equine and food- or large-animal content, while companion-animal species account for about 58%. A student who trained toward small-animal practice — exactly as accreditation allows — must still pass a single national exam in which two of every five species-weighted points concern animals that student may have met only briefly in the clinic.
The mismatch is not, by itself, evidence of unfairness. A national license should test the full breadth of the profession, and most colleges teach a broad common core. The problem is narrower: no one can measure the fit. Neither ICVA nor the Council on Education publishes the mapping between any college’s curriculum and the exam blueprint, or the school-level subscore data that would show whether graduates of differently structured programs face systematically different alignment between what they were taught and what they are tested on. Schools receive a pass rate. They do not receive a content-area diagnosis, and the public receives no school-level data at all.
Under Council on Education Standard 11, the NAVLE pass rate is the Council’s single quantitative outcome measure for accreditation — with an expectation that at least 80% of each graduating class sitting the exam will have passed by graduation. The one number that can put a college’s accreditation at risk is produced by a process the college cannot inspect.
Where do the questions come from? In part, from faculty at the same colleges whose graduates the exam evaluates. That is not unusual in high-stakes testing — subject-matter experts are usually working professionals — but it is a recognized conflict, and a public examination authority has said so on the record.
In 2020, California’s Office of Professional Examination Services — a state agency that develops and reviews licensing examinations — addressed item-development practice for the veterinary exam. Its guidance (policy OPES 18-01) recommended phasing active faculty out of item-writing roles, precisely to reduce the conflict that arises when the people who teach candidates also write the questions that gate them. ICVA kept active faculty in those roles.
It is worth being exact about what this is and is not. It is a conflict the structure permits — not evidence that any faculty member has ever written a question to advantage or disadvantage any school. Commercial board preparation — VetPrep, Zuku and others — is sold openly to students at every college, so there is no plausible story in which some schools enjoy privileged “insider” access to the exam. The concern is entirely structural: a design that a neutral testing agency flagged as a conflict, left unaddressed, inside an exam whose fairness cannot be checked from the outside.
The cost of that opacity is sharpest in a single case. Tuskegee University operates the only historically Black college of veterinary medicine in the United States, and its graduates account for a substantial share of the nation’s Black veterinarians. As recently as 2017, roughly nine in ten of its graduating candidates passed the NAVLE — a figure stated in an October 2025 pre-litigation notice to the AVMA and ICVA that ICVA has not disputed, and consistent with the college’s historically reported pass rates, including 91% in 2012. By 2024, declining year over year, that figure had fallen to 51%, as reported by VIN News — a drop steep enough that the college’s exam outcomes became one of the factors cited in its probationary accreditation.
What makes that decline so hard to interpret is the very thing this study documents. Because no college’s curriculum fully matches the exam, and because the data that would explain the gap is not published, two patterns become genuinely difficult to explain from outside — and both deserve an innocent reading. The first is how some colleges sustain pass rates well above 90% year after year, on material their students may have encountered only briefly. The second is how an accredited college passes roughly nine in ten of its candidates and then, a few years later, barely half.
There are ordinary explanations for each, and they may well be the right ones. A college’s outcomes can shift with class composition, clinical resources, faculty, or admissions — and Tuskegee has faced documented pressures on its finances (Standard 2) and clinical resources (Standard 4) alongside its exam results. Stronger programs may simply align better with the blueprint. The point is not that any of these patterns is suspicious. The point is that no one outside ICVA can test which explanation is correct, because the school-level and item-level fairness data that would settle it is not public. A profession that ties accreditation to a single exam score should not have to take the fairness of that score on faith.
ICVA, through counsel, denies that the exam discriminates or that its outcomes reflect bias. That denial, like the allegations it answers, cannot be tested against data the public cannot see — which is exactly the problem.
The curriculum mismatch, the item-writing conflict, and the divergent outcomes share one feature: each is visible from outside, and none can be verified from outside. The study’s ask is modest and specific. Publish the mapping between curricula and the exam blueprint. Publish school-level pass-rate and subscore data, as the medical and nursing boards already do. Publish item-level fairness statistics — differential item functioning — across demographic groups. And submit the apparatus to an audit that ICVA does not itself control.
Until then, the divergence at Tuskegee, the conflict flagged by a state testing agency, and the mismatch between training and test all remain exactly where they are now: visible, unexplained, and impossible to check. Reform here does not require anyone to prove bad faith. It requires only that the one exam standing between a graduate and a license be open to the same scrutiny we expect of every other gatekeeper.
Read the study — The Gatekeeper No One Can Audit NAVEC’s full report on the NAVLE’s fairness and verification gaps: the curriculum-alignment problem, the item-development conflict, the Tuskegee outcomes, and what genuine independent verification would require.Sources: AVMA Council on Education Standards 9 (curriculum) and 11 (outcomes); the California Office of Professional Examination Services and policy OPES 18-01; ICVA’s published NAVLE species weighting; VIN News reporting on Tuskegee’s NAVLE outcomes; and an October 2025 pre-litigation notice to the AVMA and ICVA, whose 2017 pass-rate figure ICVA has not rebutted. This article distinguishes documented fact from inference: the species-weight percentages are ICVA’s published relative weights, not item counts; the 2017 Tuskegee figure rests on the unrebutted notice rather than an ICVA-published number; and the structural conflicts described are permitted by the exam’s design, not evidence that any individual has acted on them. NAVEC is a nonprofit advocating for fairness, transparency, and accountability in veterinary licensing.
← Back to Research & Reports