"Fun" Wrinkle in California Disability Testing Lawsuit

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

         SCHOOL EXIT EXAMS NEED WARNINGS, ATTORNEYS SAY
          San Francisco Chronicle -- January 4,2003
                      by Nanette Asimov

Lawyers for thousands of disabled students who are suing the state over 
its high school exit exam now want warning labels like those for 
cigarettes placed on each test, advising that it has "not been shown to 
have instructional validity."

The state's requirement that high school students pass the exit exam is 
scheduled to begin with the class of 2004. Those who fail will not get a 
diploma. Students began trying to pass the test in 2001, and failure 
rates among students with learning disabilities and other physical 
impairments have topped 90 percent.

In Oakland, of about 330 disabled students in the class of '04, just 
five have passed the test so far, said attorney Sid Wolinsky of 
Disability Rights Advocates Inc., the law firm handling the suit.

The lawyers amended their year-old lawsuit late last month, asking the 
state court to simply exempt disabled students from the exit exam 
requirement.

The same amendment asked that the warning be posted on each test. Test- 
takers would be told that the exams may not be valid -- meaning that 
students may not have been taught the material on the exam -- and would 
say that the state is considering whether to delay the exam requirement 
for all students, Wolinsky said.

The California Teachers Association and the Oakland School Board filed 
legal papers in San Francisco Superior Court the same day, Dec. 24, in 
support of the students' claims that next year's new test requirement 
will unfairly deny many with disabilities a high school diploma.

The state Board of Education has strongly backed the concept of the exit 
exam as part of its multiyear effort to improve the academic know-how of 
all California's high school graduates, including disabled students.

Rae Belisle, who was the board's lead attorney in the case, until 
stepping down last month, has acknowledged that some students have 
impairments so severe "that they won't get a diploma. That's the reality 
of it."

Nevertheless, the board will decide this spring whether to delay the 
exam because many students -- disabled or not -- may not have been 
taught the material on the test. Requiring an exam with such high stakes 
under those circumstances could leave the state open to even more lawsuits.

Board members are waiting for the results of a multiyear study of the 
exam due in the spring from independent evaluators.

Wayne Johnson, president of the California Teachers Association, said 
his union decided to file legal papers supporting the lawsuit because 
"it doesn't make any sense" to deny diplomas to disabled students whose 
special classes may never have covered the material on the test.

"Sometimes even with tremendous accommodations, they still can't compete 
on a level playing field," Johnson said.

The 10-member Oakland School Board voted unanimously to joining the 
teachers in support of the students' case.

Other school districts have also criticized the exit exam in general, 
saying that diplomas should not hinge on a single exam.

In San Francisco, a school board committee voted to recommend to the 
full board that it "investigate all available legal means to prevent the 
state" from implementing the exit exam, said Jill Wynns, the board's 
president and committee member.