Editor

Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Goode handed down a written order this past Thursday that lifts the injunction against allowing the Fairfield County School District to use the results from the CRT (criterion referenced test) to affect students’ grades.

This means that, according to the Board’s revised testing policy, in the case where the CRT scores will improve a student’s grade, the parents have the option to use the scores; where it would bring the student’s grade down, the CRT scores can be disregarded.

Goode lifted his June 27 temporary injunction based on an application by the school district for supersedeas, an application asking Judge Goode to stay or delay his own written order.

According to the order filed at the Fairfield County Courthouse, ‘a hearing on the application for supersedeas was held...on July 28...The Court heard arguments from counsel for the parties and asked numerous questions regarding the intended purpose of the CRT...The Court expressed concern that it had not been provided with evidence that the CRT had been designed for use in determining students’ grades as well as to assess their mastery...of the curriculum.’

Judge Goode then told attorneys for the school district and the Fairfield Parents Association to submit their proposed orders so that he could make a decision on the application to stay his own written order.

‘If the temporary injunction remains in effect,’ Good wrote in the decision, ‘the District likely will be unable to use the CRT for...determining students grades for...the 2008-2009 school year.’

The Fairfield Parents Association had contended the children would suffer ‘irreparable harm’ if the CRT grades were used. Goode said their concern was partially addressed when the school board voted on July 30 to reduce the percentage factor that the CRT scores would affect grades.

It takes an extraordinary case for courts to interfere with the business of a school district or school board, Goode pointed out in his earlier order; there must be clear evidence of corruption, bad faith or an abuse of power.

One of Goode’s reasons for issuing the temporary injunction was because he determined at the time the implementation of the CRT was an ‘abuse of power’ by superintendent Dr. Samantha Ingram, because she violated the school district policy and that ‘this deviation from policy is without board approval.’

Additional evidence submitted to the judge following his initial ruling has caused him to revise this opinion, stating, ‘(evidence) of unsuccessful efforts to block the use of the cRT as a factor in determining grades...(indicates) that the Superintendent was not proceeding in her use of the CRT in a manner contrary to the wishes of a majority of the Board.’

He also wrote ‘the Court’s initial concern in regard to the proper use of the test has now been adequately addressed...’

He adds that the Fairfield Parents Association’s claims that state law was violated in the implementation of the CRT and that the implementation itself was flawed, are ‘not sufficiently clear at this point in this case for the Court to conclude that (they) have met their burden of demonstrating the facts...for an injunction...The prior temporary injunction is...dissolved.’