Thread: Court Reinstates High School Exit Exam

I thought I would share this article,


http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/9268646/detail.html

Court Reinstates High School Exit Exam

POSTED: 12:59 pm PDT May 24, 2006
UPDATED: 1:49 pm PDT May 24, 2006

Email This Story | Print This Story

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated the state exit exam as a graduation requirement, but it was unclear whether the decision means 47,000 high school seniors who failed the test won't graduate this year.

The Supreme Court ordered the state Appeals Court to hold hearings in the case.

This year's class was the first in which passing the test of 10th-grade English and eighth-grade math and algebra was required for graduation.

A group of students sued the state, claiming the test discriminates against low-income and minority students. On May 12, Alameda Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman invalidated the graduation requirement for the Class of 2006, saying California was ill-equipped "to adequately prepare students to take the exam," especially in poor, underfunded areas of the state.

Liberal judges/courts have been slowly eroding our capacity to maintain a society with standards....it's about time especially in the state of California where many illegal aliens live along with their children that we begin to recapture the standards that are essential to maintaining a quality nation that can deal with the future and not regress into a quagmire like Mexico.

There was a link to a sample from the exit exam in the MERC. It's not THAT hard. I'm very bad at math, but I got all of the math questions right. I'm glad to see the judge didn't give in. Kids coming out of high school today lack a lot of skills I'm sorry to say.

Kids coming out of high school today lack a lot of skills I'm sorry to say

But they have just enough skills to find their mail boxes.

Plyler v. Doe - education to children of illegal aliens at taxpayer expense
Under the 1982 Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court ruling, illegal alien students are entitled to enroll in our public schools at taxpayer expense. This ruling was issued for two reasons. One, the ruling was issued in 1982, when the 1986 Amnesty program was already being discussed, and it was felt that these students would be amnestied anyway. Also these students were small enough in number that they posed no threat to the education of America's students and they were not a financial hardship on United States taxpayers.
However, written into the decision is the following: Congress can reverse the decision if these illegal alien students prove to be a financial hardship to taxpayers and if the students who are legally residing in the United States begin to have their own education negatively impacted by the presence of illegal alien students.

47,000 high school seniors who failed the test won't graduate this year.

Originally Posted by ALIPACeditor

Plyler v. Doe - education to children of illegal aliens at taxpayer expense
Under the 1982 Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court ruling, illegal alien students are entitled to enroll in our public schools at taxpayer expense. This ruling was issued for two reasons. One, the ruling was issued in 1982, when the 1986 Amnesty program was already being discussed, and it was felt that these students would be amnestied anyway. Also these students were small enough in number that they posed no threat to the education of America's students and they were not a financial hardship on United States taxpayers.
However, written into the decision is the following: Congress can reverse the decision if these illegal alien students prove to be a financial hardship to taxpayers and if the students who are legally residing in the United States begin to have their own education negatively impacted by the presence of illegal alien students.

What the hell kind of legal decision is that? Constitutional law is not conditional. If the illegals have no RIGHT to a public education on the taxpayer dime, then the court has no authority to mandate that it be provided. If the illegals do have such a right, the court cannot make it conditional. This is runaway judicial caprice and federalism at its worst. The court is not ruling in this decision, it is DICTATING.

I agree with you. This is B-S; I did not write the law.

steve

Originally Posted by ALIPACeditor

I agree with you. This is B-S; I did not write the law.

steve

Yeah, the reason I made the comment is that I had never seen any of the text of that decision. It's just one of the many absurd rulings that demonstrates that our constitutional government has become a krytocracy.