Copyright© 2006 by School Services of California, Inc.

                                      Volume 19                   For Publication Date: August 18, 2006             No. 18

State Appeals Court Upholds the California High School Exit Exam

On August 11, 2006, the state’s 1^st District Court of Appeal made its ruling in the Valenzuela v. O’Connell lawsuit, finding in favor of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell. This means that the state can continue to require students to pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) in order to graduate from high school. As you will recall, this past May, an Alameda judge found in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, who sued the state over the validity of the requirement that all students must pass the exit exam to receive a diploma. As a result of this initial ruling, O’Connell filed for and was granted a preliminary stay of that ruling until the matter could be presented to the state Court Of Appeal. 

Today’s ruling vacates the previous ruling that initially restrained the state from denying diplomas to members of the 2006 graduating class who had met all other state and local graduation requirements, but had not passed both portions of the CAHSEE. This means that roughly 47,000 students—about 9% of the Class of 2006—must still pass the exam as of the May administration. The state still hopes to offer additional exam administrations to these students indefinitely until they are successful, including plans to offer additional administrations later this fall and Saturday administrations this coming December. 

In response to this ruling, Superintendent O’Connell stated, “The court’s decision validates the state's efforts over the last ten years to raise standards and expectations across the board and enhance educational opportunities for all students in California schools. The exit exam is a key piece of this effort, and retaining it will enable us to continue on the path of improving all schools.” 

The Court of Appeal found that the remedy granted by the trial court was overly broad. While the court agreed with many of the plaintiff’s arguments, the Court of Appeal found that “ . . . at most, it justified ordering defendants to provide additional assistance to give students—including those in the class of 2006—a full and fair opportunity to learn the skills needed to pass the CAHSEE. It did not justify the issuance of an injunction requiring defendants to grant diplomas to all otherwise eligible students, despite their failure to pass the CAHSEE.” 

Further, the court found that the trial court’s initial ruling erred by focusing the remedy on equal access to diplomas rather than on equal access to education. The ruling also states, “The purpose of education is not to endow students with diplomas, but to equip them with the substantive knowledge and skills they need to succeed in life.” 

Although the Court of Appeal has issued its ruling, the issues of equal opportunity to successful educational preparation for the CAHSEE remain, especially in schools affected by the Williams lawsuit settlement. The Court recognized that there is considerable doubt as to whether improvements, especially in the immediate future, required by the Williams settlement would be sufficient to give all students an “adequate opportunity to prepare properly for the CAHSEE.” The court urged both parties to step outside their “fog of war” and cooperatively find ways to provide equal and adequate access to remedial assistance for students who enter their senior year of high school and have yet to pass the CAHSEE. 

Plaintiffs may still decide to file an appeal with the California Supreme Court. Absent an appeal or a Supreme Court decision not to hear the case, this would be the final decision related to this matter.

—Terry Anderson and Theresa Inslee