Arturo Gonzalez: Reasons for challenging the exit exam

[George Sheridan <learn@jps.net>]

Other view: Reasons for challenging the exit exam
By Arturo J. González -- Special to The Bee
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/forum/story/14268793p-15080033c.html
Published Sunday, June 18, 2006
Story appeared in Forum section, Page E4

Most people who are critical of the lawsuit challenging the exit exam are 
uninformed both about what the suit seeks and about the basis for filing it.

The lawsuit does not argue that California should not have an exit exam. 
Our clients' objective in the litigation is to compel the state to provide 
every child with a fair and equal opportunity to prepare for the test 
before the state deprives students of a diploma for failure to pass it.

The state's own consultant, HumRRO, has reported that as of the start of 
the 2005-06 academic year, half of the high schools in California had not 
been taught all of the material on the test. In addition, the law requires 
schools to provide "remediation," or supplemental instruction, for students 
who do not pass. HumRRO reported that as of the start of the 2005-06 
academic year, half of the high schools had not done that.

Last fall, to help school districts provide the required remediation, the 
state allocated $20 million for the class of 2006. Unfortunately, 166 
entire school districts did not receive any of this money. In addition, 
money was allocated only for high schools with a senior class failure rate 
of more than 28 percent. Thus, high schools with a senior failure rate of 
20 percent or 25 percent did not receive an allocation.

There is also a terrible imbalance in California with respect to the 
distribution of credentialed teachers. Professor John Rogers from UCLA has 
done a study in which he concludes that in middle schools in south Los 
Angeles, only one of three math teachers is credentialed to teach math.

We submitted 67 declarations in support of a motion to stop the diploma 
penalty component of the exit exam. Declarants include prominent professors 
from Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC Davis.

After considering all of this evidence, Alameda Superior Court Judge Robert 
Freedman found that the students would be harmed without judicial 
intervention and that they are likely to prevail in demonstrating that they 
have not been given an equal opportunity to learn the material tested on 
the exit exam. He noted that the record is "replete with evidence" 
regarding the scarcity of resources in California's public schools and its 
disparate effect on poor schools.

He found evidence "that shows that students in economically challenged 
communities have not had an equal opportunity to learn the materials tested 
on the CAHSEE "; "that some schools have yet to fully align their 
curriculums to the state's content standards"; and "that the negative 
effects of scarcity of resources continue to fall disproportionately on 
English language learners, particularly with respect to the shortage of 
teachers who are qualified to teach these students."

Freedman did not stop the state from administering the test or from taking 
steps to help students pass it. What he did is to issue an order saying 
that the state cannot deprive students of a diploma for failure to pass the 
test until it can show that all students have been given a fair chance to 
pass it. State education officials then went directly to the California 
Supreme Court. By a vote of 4-3, that court issued a stay because four 
justices were not sure that the remedy was the correct one.

It asked an appeals court to consider that issue on an expedited basis. 
Notably, the Supreme Court did not dispute any of the trial court's findings.

A hearing is scheduled for July 25 before a state appeals court in San 
Francisco. At that hearing, we will ask the court to reinstate Freedman's 
order, which does not stop the state from making whatever efforts it deems 
necessary to identify underperforming students and to take steps to help them.

What our clients want is to ensure that before depriving students of a high 
school diploma for failure to pass one test, the state must ensure that the 
failure is that of the students, and not that of the state.

*

About the writer:
Arturo J. González is a San Francisco lawyer. He filed a class action 
lawsuit on behalf of students in the class of 2006 who have not passed the 
exit exam, contending that poor students and English learners have not been 
given a fair opportunity to pass the test. Reach him at agonzalez@mofo.com.



George Sheridan