California high court stays lower court order overturning exit exam
Legal Clips, May 2006
The California Supreme Court has granted California State Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell's motion for an immediate stay of enforcement of Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman's order two weeks earlier that overturned the state's exit exam for high school seniors. The high court's ruling reinstates the exam, which seniors must pass in order to graduate. The supreme court sent the case back down to the California Court of Appeals, which the high court said is the appropriate forum to decide the issue of whether the exam violates the state constitution. Mr. O'Connell has informed teachers and administrators of the turnaround and is advising students who have failed the exam thus far to continue to study and retake the exam in summer school or adult education. He also says he is confident the state legislature will provide additional funding for more testing opportunities and remediation programs soon. Arturo Gonzalez, who represents the students challenging the exam, vows to take the case to the appellate court as soon as possible. "If the constitutional rights of our children are violated, we cannot punish them further by depriving them of a diploma that they have rightfully earned by passing all required courses," he says. Schools seem to be taking the legal ping pong in stride. If the situation changes again before graduation day, most school administrators say they are prepared. Most students say they are not counting on a court decision to bail them out and believe when the most recent test results from March are released they will pass.
In a second case challenging the exit exam, Californians for Justice (CFJ) has filed an emergency appeal asking the supreme court to decide directly on its claim that the state did not comply with a mandatory legal requirement to study alternatives to the exam before beginning to deny diplomas. In that case, CFJ had alleged that the state was in violation of the law creating the exam because it had failed to study alternatives before adopting the exam and only belatedly attempted to conduct the study. Judge Freedman ruled that the state was not bound to act by a certain time. Solomon Rivera, a spokesman for CFJ, says Judge Freedman found the statutory timeline is not as clear as CFJ contended.
San Jose Mercury NewsBy Luis Zaragoza and Becky Bartindale
[Link to full story]Los Angeles TimesBy Jill Leovy
[Link to full story]Sacramento BeeBy Laurel Rosenthal
[Link to full story][Editor's Note: Background on the two suits and other high stakes test cases is available below.][NSBA School Law pages on California litigation]