Exit exam requirement upheld for class of 2006 

In a dramatic 11th hour ruling that appears to end weeks of uncertainty for schools, students and their families, the state Supreme Court on May 24 upheld the legality of requiring seniors in the class of 2006 to pass the California High School Exit Exam in order to graduate.

Technically, the high court granted a request from the state to stay a lower court order blocking the exit exam requirement – at least for the class of 2006 – and sent the case to the state's Court of Appeal for further consideration.

The practical effect of the high court decision was to apparently settle the matter of which high school seniors will be eligible to receive diplomas this spring. Legislation signed by the governor in February exempted special education students in the class of 2006 from the exam requirement.

A jubilant state Superintendent Jack O’Connell applauded the high court’s decision, calling the ruling “a clear victory” for students and for the state’s efforts to ensure that students master certain basic academic skills before graduating.

“I am extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has reinstated the California High School Exit Exam as a condition for graduation,” he said. “As a result, school districts can continue their graduation exercises as planned before this litigation began.”

O’Connell acknowledged that the continuing legal battle over CAHSEE has created great confusion, and he promised to communicate to districts the latest developments in the case.

The legality of the exit exam requirement was thrown into doubt on May 12, when an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled that the state could not deny diplomas to any student otherwise eligible to graduate “solely on grounds that such student has not passed all parts of the CAHSEE.”

In issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Robert Freedman said he was persuaded by a lawsuit filed against the state by parents of 10 students who argued they could not pass the exam because they went to schools lacking sufficient resources and were thus denied an equal opportunity to learn. Pending a full trial on the merits of their case, his injunction was designed to prevent the CAHSEE requirement from taking effect for this year’s graduates. Judge Freedman will still hear the merits of the case at trial in the coming months.

Nonetheless, Judge Freedman’s order created a logistical nightmare for educators and students, affecting everything from graduation ceremony plans and diploma printing to course offerings and enrollment in remedial classes, summer school and adult education courses targeted to students still trying to pass CAHSEE.

In fact, by the time of the Supreme Court’s ruling, a few charter high schools had already held graduation ceremonies and awarded diplomas to students who had not passed the exam. The state Department of Education is researching whether those students will keep their diplomas.

The Appeals Court could still rule that the state exit exam is illegal, but attorneys for the state believe it’s unlikely there will be any decision on the issue in time to make a difference for most of this year’s graduates.

"The Supreme Court did not say that Judge Freedman was wrong,” said Arturo J. Gonzalez, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “Four justices simply questioned whether allowing our clients to graduate was the appropriate remedy.”