High school seniors in California are once again required to pass the state鈥檚 exit exam to receive a diploma this year. A divided California Supreme Court voted Wednesday to place a stay on a trial judge鈥檚 decision earlier this month that lifted the exam requirement.
鈥淪chool districts can continue their graduation exercises as planned before this litigation began,鈥� state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack 翱鈥机辞苍苍别濒濒 said during a conference call with reporters following the much-anticipated ruling.
Since May 12, when Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert B. Freedman granted the plaintiffs in Valenzuela v. 翱鈥机辞苍苍别濒濒 their request for an injunction and suspended the exam requirement, many districts have been preparing to issue diplomas to all seniors, whether or not they鈥檝e passed the exam.
It is now up to local school districts to decide whether students who have not passed both the mathematics and language arts portions of the exam will be allowed to 鈥渨alk鈥� during this year鈥檚 graduation ceremonies, Mr. 翱鈥机辞苍苍别濒濒 said.
In the 742,000-student Los Angeles Unified School District, for example, the reinstatement of the exam means that students who have not passed, but have met all other requirements for graduation, will receive 鈥渁 certificate of completion of course credits and requirements鈥� instead of a diploma.
Case Sent to Appeals Court
The supreme court also sent the case to the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco and directed it to 鈥渆stablish a schedule for expedited briefing and argument鈥� on the merits of the Valenzuela case.
The supreme court鈥檚 seven justices were not unanimous. One voted to send the case to the lower court, but opposed the stay. Two of the justices voted against both those steps.
Regarding Judge Freedman鈥檚 ruling, the justices wrote that they weren鈥檛 persuaded that his decision 鈥渨ould be an appropriate remedy even if plaintiffs were to prevail in their underlying claims.鈥�
Judge Freedman agreed with the plaintiffs that California鈥檚 high school exit exam is discriminatory because students who have not passed it鈥攅specially English-language learners鈥攈ave not had the same opportunity as other students to learn the material, since they are more likely to attend overcrowded schools and have teachers lacking proper credentials. He also said students face a 鈥渟ignificant risk of harm鈥� if they have to remain in 鈥渁n already stressed district鈥� for a fifth year so they can earn a diploma when they would otherwise be admitted to college.
Mr. 翱鈥机辞苍苍别濒濒, the state schools chief, said he considered the high court鈥檚 decision 鈥渁 clear victory鈥攏ot a victory for me, but a victory for public education.鈥� And he said he was glad the state would now have an opportunity to argue 鈥渢he merits of the case鈥� before the appeals court.
Marsha Bedwell, the lead counsel for the California Department of Education, said she didn鈥檛 know how soon the appellate court would hear arguments in the case. But she also said that she expected the stay to remain in place through this year鈥檚 graduations, which begin across the state as early as the first week of June.
When the state superintendent鈥檚 office filed its appeal as well as its request for a stay with the California Supreme Court last week, lawyers for the state acknowledged the possibility that the case might be sent to the appellate level. But Mr. 翱鈥机辞苍苍别濒濒 said he filed with the supreme court first because he was looking for 鈥渦ltimate resolution.鈥� And Douglas Press, a supervising deputy attorney general for the state, said the case certainly fit the supreme court鈥檚 criteria of having 鈥渟tatewide importance.鈥�
Options for Students
In his comments yesterday, Mr. 翱鈥机辞苍苍别濒濒 urged students who have not yet passed both sections of the exam to sign up for summer school, explore online options, and even consider taking a fifth year of high school.
But he added that the current figure of more than 46,000 students who have not passed is expected to change soon, when the education department receives results from the most recent administrations of the exam, in March and earlier this month.
Arturo J. Gonzalez, the lawyer for the five students who sued the state over the exam, did not immediately return calls for comment.
But Public Advocates Inc., a San Francisco-based law firm that represents plaintiffs in a second case challenging the exam, released a statement saying Mr. 翱鈥机辞苍苍别濒濒鈥檚 appeal 鈥渉as created chaos where there was clarity. Now the court of appeals will have to decide the appropriateness of the injunction before students graduate.鈥�
Meanwhile, Public Advocates has filed an emergency appeal with the state supreme court for its client, Californians for Justice, a nonprofit organization with offices throughout the state. Judge Freedman dismissed that case on May 16.
