It's sad when despite being informed of a potential problem, those who are in a position to make a change choose not to act. Our elected and appointed officials have a responsibility to ensure that the policies being enacted are both enforceable and applied equitably.

In May of 2009, the Idaho State Board of Education made the decision to change the high school graduation requirements which begin with our current graduating seniors. Among the changes were to increase the number of science credits from 4 to 6, increase math from 4 to 6 credits, with two of the credits to be taken in the last year of high school. As well as the statewide implementation of the senior project.

There was another requirement which was implemented that has been particularly troublesome for those of us who feel that if a governing body spends the time and energy to implement a rule, that it is to be followed as written.

Here is the exact quote from IDAPA 08, TITLE 02, CHAPTER 03 08.02.03 - RULES GOVERNING THOROUGHNESS, Section 105 (03): "College Entrance Examination. (Effective for all public school students who enter high school at the 9th grade level in Fall 2009 or later.) A student must take one (1) of the following college entrance examinations before the end of the student's eleventh grade year: COMPASS, ACT or SAT."

This seems like a pretty straightforward directive. However if you look closely, you will notice that a college entrance exam is required BEFORE the end of the junior year, and there is no provision for what to do if, for whatever reason, the student does not take a college entrance exam before the junior year ends. It also does not indicate what is required if a student transfers to an Idaho school AFTER the junior year.

This leaves the interpretation up to the individual school district, and perhaps the building administrators themselves. How can this possibly be seen as a "Thorough" or "Uniform" requirement which is required by Idaho code? It may seem simple enough to allow students to take an exam during the senior year, but that needs to be spelled out in policy first. Since this policy exists at the state level, then every school district in the state must have the same flawed policy.

Now, you would think that once this discrepancy was pointed out to local and state authorities something would be done to make it right. Unfortunately that has not been the case.

When this rule was implemented four years ago, the discrepancy was pointed out to building and district administrators in hopes that it would be corrected. I even contacted Superintendent Luna's office about my concerns. When the first mandatory SAT was being arranged a year ago, this discrepancy was pointed out to Superintendent Luna's office again. The response was that students could take the exam in their senior year. This despite the very clear mandate to the contrary.

In August, I brought my concern to the Cd'A School Board, but they failed to act on it. When the State Board of Education held its meeting in Coeur d'Alene in December, once again I brought up my concerns about this mandate. The board president said that he would refer the issue to a subcommittee. I have yet to hear anything back from that committee or the state board of education.

Then in March, I contacted Cd'A School Board Chair Hamilton asking for an opportunity to speak with him about this issue. He declined to meet with me indicating in an email that he felt as though he may be walking into some kind of "set-up." As far as I can tell, the only thing that has happened since it was brought to the attention of the Cd'A Board is that someone made a few minor changes to the letter I wrote and forwarded it on to the state with Mr. Hamilton and Superintendent Bauman's signatures on it.

Each time I addressed an agent of the state superintendent's office or a governing body about my concerns I pointed out this policy flaw. To date, nothing has changed with regard to this issue. What was also missed by these people was the other question that I asked every one of them: "If we can overlook this very clear policy mandate, then which other graduation requirements are we allowed to ignore?"

Failure to address a problem that has been repeatedly pointed out at many levels of government is inexcusable. This situation should have been cleared up long ago. Subsequently, when our principals announce in the coming weeks that every member of the graduating class has fulfilled ALL of the graduation requirements, many of them will be wrong. There will be some students who were not able to fulfill the requirements as written and they will graduate anyway.

Having allowed one group of students to receive a high school diploma that did not meet all of the requirements, or go through the process of an alternate graduation path, could possibly open the door to even bigger concerns. If we are willing to ignore one requirement, then isn't EVERY requirement subject to being overlooked?

Rick Jones of Rathdrum is a counselor at Coeur d'Alene High School.