I usually really appreciate Dan Walter's columns in the Sacramento Bee, but this one just blew me away.

Dan takes issue with both Judge Freedman's ruling on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the CAHSEE itself.

For Judge Freedman, he writes:

That seemingly creates a whole new standard by which to judge official policies, if Freedman's ruling survives appeal. If someone feels that he or she suffers an "emotional toll" then the courts presumably could intervene. One could envision a flood of lawsuits every April, for example, as taxpayers emote over writing checks to pay their income taxes.

Freedman plunged even deeper into the quicksand of absurdity, however, when he noted that the state constitution guarantees access to a public education and then leaped to the conclusion that the right to an "educational opportunity" carries an implicit right to a high school diploma. "A diploma can fairly be characterized as an 'educational opportunity,' denial of which is subject to strict scrutiny," he wrote. Thus, a legally guaranteed opportunity is, by decree, transformed into a legally guaranteed outcome.

If left standing, that would allow any student who's denied any diploma -- perhaps even a certificate passing from one grade to the next -- to sue for denial of educational opportunity. Even grades for individual classes could become the subject of litigation, or a coach's decision to start one youngster in a game while leaving another on the bench.

I agree with Dan on that one. However, regarding the CAHSEE itself, he writes:

It's nonsensical, therefore, to assume that a high school diploma based, finally, on a test limited to certain language and mathematical skills has any objective meaning. A high-IQ student might sleepwalk through such a test while one with below-average intelligence might study hard and raise his or her academic skills to the highest feasible level and still fail. The exam, moreover, induces schools to teach to the test while shortchanging other, more lasting forms of instruction.

A high school diploma should reflect how well a student's performance over 12 years reflects innate potential -- and that's a judgment best left to dedicated and knowledgeable educators, not the whims of politicians or judges.

I think Dan misses the point of the CAHSEE. The "dedicated and knowledgeable educators" he mentions have been passing kids on from grade to grade regardless of whether they acquired basic skills in English/Language Arts and Mathematics. Each year, businesses and colleges spend millions of dollars remediating high school graduates who failed to get the basic skills they needed.

The CAHSEE represents the absolute floor for high school graduation. Testing at the 7th and 10th grade level with only 55% or 60% as a passing rate is the absolute minimum set of skills we're asking from our high school graduates. Even a student with "below-average intelligence" that Dan cites should be able to pass this test.

In recent months, before Judge Freedman's ruling, we've seen thousands of students who have taken extra classes and attended workshops and studied on their own to gain these basic skills their teachers haven't provided. They've worked hard and they've passed the test. Suspending the CAHSEE doesn't help these students. It just removes the incentive for them to make any extra effort to prepare for college or employment.