An article in the Denver Post by Peter Huidekoper, Jr. explains that recent higher graduation rates aren’t being accompanied by improved educations. There are “…several high schools where the four-year graduation rate is impressive but the (low) ACT scores and (high) remediation rates are not.” Apparently the ACT test given in the 11^th grade is the one remaining “…assessment that matters.” The article discusses examining the ACT scores for 2012 juniors, 2013 senior graduation rates, and remediation rates for those who entered a Colorado college the next fall.

The data studied by Huidekoper showed a clear correlation between ACT test scores and graduation and remediation rates. “For students with ACT scores 21 and above nearly 90 percent graduate and remediation rates are exceptionally low. Graduation rates decrease and remediation rates increase as ACT scores drop. Westminster High (in my home city) had an ACT average score of 16.3, a surprisingly high graduation rate of 76.9%, and “…most of those graduates who went on to college required remedial classes.”

The author gives many more examples of generally depressing data. The “…staggering statewide remediation rate of 34.2 percent does not include nearly half of the 2013 graduates who did not go on to college.” It is clear that there an appallingly small number of seniors who receive a high school diploma and are “college ready.” The author asks whether “…a diploma from a Colorado high school truly stands for something.”

Why did the Supreme Court get involved in a dispute about raisins? George Will explained in an editorial that the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act passed in 1937 was one of the New Dealer responses to the Great Depression. The law required farmers to turn over a significant portion of their crops to the government, which would theoretically drive up prices. Something called the “Raisin Administrative Committee” was formed by regulation in 1949, and that committee accused Marvin and Laura Horne of refusing to turn over a million pounds of raisins. The government wanted the Hornes to pay $700,000 for their failure to comply.  Justice Elena Kagan wondered during the arguments whether this case involves “a taking or it’s just the world’s most outdated law.” Will’s answer is: both. “The law has spawned more than 25 ‘marketing orders’ covering almonds, apricots, avocados, cherries, cranberries, dates, grapes, hazelnuts, kiwifruit, onions, pears, pistachios, plums, spearmint oil, walnuts and other stuff.”

The New York Times reports that the Supreme Court ruled that actions by the raisin committee “…amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property by the government.” The Hornes successfully defended themselves arguing that the program violated “…the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which says private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation.” Eight justices agreed and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in dissenting that the “Hornes should be relieved of the obligation to pay the fine and associated civil penalties.” Breyer wrote that he would have returned the case to lower courts. In his concurrence with the majority Justice Thomas, perhaps showing that even Supreme Court Justices can use puns, “…said such a move would be a fruitless exercise.”

I enjoyed Will’s closing sentences. “Progressives say, ‘Government is simply the name we give to the things we chose to do together. That is not how the Hornes are experiencing government.”