JACK O'CONNELL v. THE SUPERIOR COURT
Filed 8/11/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| JACK O'CONNELL, as Superintendent of Public Instruction etc., et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; LILIANA VALENZUELA et al., Real Parties in Interest. | A113933 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. JCCP 4468) |
Story continue from Part I ……..
Plaintiffs' answer to this point is to argue that students can simply refer prospective employers to the fact that their diplomas contain an annotation attesting to their passage of the CAHSEE, as a way to dissipate any inference that they might have been granted their diplomas without passing the exit exam. This response underscores one of the pernicious effects of the trial court's injunction, by emphasizing that students who obtain their diplomas by court order, without passing the CAHSEE, will remain in a distinct disadvantaged group, stigmatized forever by their own unannotated diplomas.
As important as the CAHSEE may be to socially disadvantaged students who pass the exit exam, it is of equal importance to plaintiffs who have not passed. The second goal of the CAHSEE is to identify those students who lack the education needed to achieve even the minimal level of proficiency demanded by the exit exam, and to target them for remedial instruction. (See Stats. 1999, 1st Ex. Sess. 1999-2000, ch. 1, § 2 [amending § 37252, subd. (a), in conjunction with adoption of CAHSEE, to provide that summer school instructional programs are to be offered to pupils â€