This paper examines the controversy surrounding California's High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) following a 2006 Superior Court ruling that suspended the test as a graduation requirement. The paper argues that the CAHSEE is fundamentally unfair to two groups: English language learners given only six months of language instruction before testing, and students attending underfunded schools in low-income communities. Drawing on reporting from NPR and CBS News as well as California Department of Education materials, the paper evaluates the state's proposed funding remedies and concludes that financial increases alone cannot resolve the systemic inequities the exam exposes.
The paper models effective use of counterargument and rebuttal. It accurately represents the state's position — that students fail because of poor English skills rather than a denial of adequate education — and then systematically dismantles that claim by showing how the state's own inadequate language instruction and school-funding failures created those skill gaps in the first place.
The paper opens with background on CAHSEE's development and the 2006 court suspension, then moves through two parallel analytical sections (English learners, then underfunded schools), followed by an evaluation of the state's monetary remedy and its limitations, and closes with a forward-looking conclusion. This problem–analysis–solution–assessment structure is typical of policy-argument essays at the high school or early undergraduate level.
In 1999, the state of California began to develop the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) to test graduating seniors in English Language Arts and mathematics. Students graduating in the spring of 2006 were the first required to pass the test in order to receive a high school diploma (CDE). This graduation requirement created a great deal of controversy in the courts of California. The test is unfair due to the discrepancies between students and school districts.
On Friday, May 12, 2006, Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman suspended the CAHSEE as a graduation requirement for seniors (CBS News). This controversial decision potentially affected the 47,000 students who had failed one or both sections of the test (Korry). The state filed an appeal of the decision, with Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell citing the great confusion the ruling would cause for the state's 1,100 school districts (CBS News). The reality is that the state seemed more concerned about the confusion and inconvenience of the court ruling than about the underlying allegations of the test's unfairness.
One of the reasons the lawsuit was initially filed was on behalf of English language learners. These students are expected to take the test beginning in the 10th grade — just like everyone else — even if they are recent arrivals to California schools (CDE). The best that non-English speakers can hope for from the state is "six months of instruction in reading, writing, and comprehension in English" (CDE) during their first 24 months at a school. What are the chances that a student can learn English well enough in a six-month crash course to pass this exam?
Considering that the test is based on California's content standards taught from kindergarten through 12th grade, recently arrived non-English speakers have little chance of passing because their exposure to both English and the relevant subject matter has been so limited. In six months, only the basics of English can be learned. The CAHSEE English Language Arts section tests vocabulary, informational reading, literary reading comprehension, and includes a writing component (CDE). Students with limited English skills will not be able to complete these tasks adequately. The math section presents an equal challenge, since students will struggle to read instructions and questions. Furthermore, because different nations teach mathematics differently, some students may never have encountered certain content areas tested on the exam.
The state, of course, placed the blame on the students for failing "because they have poor English skills, not because they were denied a good education" (CBS News). Yet does six months of language assistance constitute a good education? This question points directly to the deeper inequity at the heart of the CAHSEE controversy.
Part of the broader problem is the inequity among school districts. Some students — both native speakers and non-English speakers — attend inferior schools. These schools, generally located in low-income or working-class neighborhoods, are more likely to suffer from "unqualified teachers and fewer resources" (Korry). If students have been victims of mediocre or failing schools, passing the test will prove exceptionally difficult.
Judge Freedman's decision is certainly not the end of the problem. If anything, it is the beginning. The strength of his decision lies in its capacity to force the state government to take notice of the problem and pursue a constructive solution. By suspending the test as a requirement for that year, the ruling gave schools and the state more opportunity to evaluate the legitimacy and fairness of the CAHSEE. The case also drew wider public attention to educational inequality in California that had long existed beneath the surface of graduation statistics. Hopefully, in the future, the various parties involved can arrive at a solution that truly benefits students and does not make them victims of bureaucracy.
You’re 60% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.