Luella High School — Grading Policy Research Package
Missing assignments · parent communication · grade entry requirements · grade challenge process
Prepared for Nicholas Deaton · 2026-08-17 · Student: Gage Deaton (11th grade) · Course: American Literature and Composition, Spring 2026
How to read this package. Luella High School (603 Walker Drive, Locust Grove, GA) operates under district-wide policy from Henry County Schools. There is no separate school-level grading handbook; the binding documents are (1) Board Policy IHA / Regulation IHA-R(2): Grading Systems, (2) the 2026-2027 Districtwide K-12 Student and Parent Handbook, and (3) Board Policy KN / Regulation KN-R(1): Complaints. This package covers the three policies requested, then applies them to the documented facts of the American Literature grade dispute. Every policy quote below is verbatim from the cited source. All case facts come from the complaint file, the district's written responses, and the classroom audit that Mr. Deaton provided.
Contents
1. The Three Requested Policies — Quick Answer
| Question | Answer | Where it lives |
|---|
| What is the policy on missing assignments? |
Make-up work after an absence is due on the first day back; the student gets up to the same number of days as the absence to complete it. Failure to comply with the make-up procedure results in a zero for the missed graded assignment. There is no numeric "N missing assignments" trigger in district policy that mandates parent contact; the trigger is academic risk, not a count. |
IHA-R(2) § I.C.6 (Make-Up Work); Handbook (Homework section) |
| When must a teacher communicate with a parent about a struggling student? |
"Teachers shall communicate with parents/legal guardians of students who are not showing an appropriate progression towards the mastery of standards and/or are in danger of failing a course." This is a mandatory duty, not optional. It triggers on "in danger of failing," regardless of how many assignments are missing. |
IHA-R(2) § I.C.4.f (Grade Reporting); identical duty at elementary level § I.B.5.d |
| What is the policy for entering grades? |
"Students should receive at least one academic grade in each subject each week. Grades should be entered into the gradebook weekly." Grades must also be visible weekly in the district grading portal (Infinite Campus). Report cards issue at 9, 18, 27, and 36 weeks; in-progress grades are available continuously in the portal. |
IHA-R(2) § I.C.1.b and § I.C.4.a-c |
Bottom line for the case: the district's own response admits the teacher did not use the required Assessment Tasks category, entered a final exam score before the exam was taken, omitted a completed assessment, and left multiple assignments at zero. Under IHA-R(2), none of those actions are discretionary; weekly grade entry and parent communication for students in danger of failing are explicit duties.
2. Policy: Missing Assignments & Make-Up Work
Verbatim from Regulation IHA-R(2), Section I.C.6 (Make-Up Work), the section that governs middle and high school:
- a. Students are responsible for any missed assignments on the first day they return to school from an absence. The number of days allowed to complete make-up work will be determined by the principal or his/her designee but will not exceed the number of days absent. Failure to comply with this procedure will result in a grade of zero (0) being given for graded assignments missed during an absence.
- b. Absences due to suspension from school are considered unexcused. Students assigned out of school suspension (OSS) will be allowed to make-up work upon return to school. The number of days to complete make-up work is commensurate to the number of days of OSS (i.e. 3 days of Out of School Suspension = 3 days to make up work missed).
What this means
- The zero-for-missed-work rule applies to missed assignments during an absence, not to work the student actually submitted and the teacher failed to grade.
- There is no district policy provision that allows a teacher to zero out work a student turned in, or to refuse late work not tied to an absence. Late-work penalties beyond the make-up provision are a classroom-level practice (some Luella-area teachers publish their own syllabus rules, e.g. "Day 1-3 full credit, Day 4 70%, Day 5+ zero"), but district regulation only authorizes zeros through the absence make-up procedure.
- The audit documents six assignments recorded as zeros where the student's Google Classroom shows submitted work, plus assignments where the grade was entered before the assignment existed. None of those zeros trace to the IHA-R(2) make-up procedure.
3. Policy: Parent Communication When a Student Is at Risk
Verbatim from Regulation IHA-R(2), Section I.C.4 (Grade Reporting), subsection f:
"Teachers shall communicate with parents/legal guardians of students who are not showing an appropriate progression towards the mastery of standards and/or are in danger of failing a course."
Supporting requirements in the same section:
- a. "Grades, updated weekly, are available for review in the district grading portal."
- b. Printed report cards at 9, 18, 27, and 36 weeks, with electronic notification of availability.
- c. "In-progress grades should be accessed directly through the district grading portal; the district will send a reminder to parents/guardians at the 4 1/2 week grading mark to monitor student progress."
Case relevance: the complaint alleges no parent communication occurred while the student was on a failing trajectory, and the district's response does not claim any communication occurred. The district's own investigation found the student should have been at a 69 (still failing) or, under a policy-compliant calculation, at a passing 79.6+ — a student sitting at 62-69 for weeks with six zeroed assignments was, by definition, "in danger of failing," triggering the mandatory communication duty under IHA-R(2) § I.C.4.f.
4. Policy: Entering Grades Into the System
Verbatim from Regulation IHA-R(2), Section I.C.1 (Academic Grades), subsection b:
"Students should receive at least one academic grade in each subject each week. Grades should be entered into the gradebook weekly."
The mandatory course architecture (Section I.C.1.a) for secondary schools:
| Category | Contents | Weight |
|---|
| Practice Work | Class work, homework, formative assessments, diagnostic assessments, written reflections | 40% |
| Assessment Tasks | Constructed response assessments, selected response assessments, reflective assessments, summative unit assessments, culminating performance tasks, projects | 40% |
| Semester Summative Assessment / EOC | Assesses the totality of standards; for EOC courses, the semester summative is the EOC at completion of the full course | 20% |
Case relevance — the 40/40/20 architecture: the district's June 17 response admits "a separate Assessment Tasks category was not utilized during the semester." The district claims assessments were folded into Practice Work "and carried the same weighted value," a claim the rebuttal challenges as unsubstantiated: no calculation worksheet was produced, and the student's other courses (Criminal Investigations/Forensic Science, U.S. History, Advanced Band IV) all used the mandated structure. The district also admits grades were entered during Winter Break dates, that a 61 was entered as the EOC on April 30 before the May 20 exam, and that four separate weeks between March 19 and May 22 had no grades posted.
5. Policy: Grade Review / Challenge Process
Verbatim from Regulation IHA-R(2), Section I.A (Grade Review):
"A student and/or parent(s)/guardian(s) who believe that a grade has been erroneously issued may ask the teacher to review the grade and to modify it if the teacher determines a modification is warranted. If the student and/or parent(s)/guardian(s) is not satisfied with the teacher's response, he/she may ask the principal for a review within 15 school days of the issuance of a final report card. However, the grading requirements of O.C.G.A. 20-2-989.20, which states that a teacher cannot be required to change a grade provided that system and school policies, administrative regulations and guidelines are followed, will be observed. The final decision on grade change requests will be made in collaboration between the principal and the applicable Assistant Superintendent of Leadership. Any change of grade issued after the final grade has been posted to the official record should be accompanied by a note of explanation in the student information system."
Timeline discipline matters here. The district's June 17 response expressly found Mr. Deaton "within the 15 school days for review," so the challenge was timely. The June 17 letter corrected 62 to 69 but denied a passing grade; the rebuttal (undated, after that letter) escalated to the Legal Compliance office. The Second Supplemental Response (Aug 14) is a records-production letter, not a grade decision. As of this package's date, the 69 stands and the credit remains denied.
6. Policy: Complaint Process (KN-R(1), 5 Levels)
The complaint process for family and community members is governed by Board Policy KN and Regulation KN-R(1). The district's Constituent Services page states: "The process for complaints has five (5) levels of review."
- Level 1: Informal Discussion with the Principal at the school/site. The district's communication protocol for "Grading or Report Card, Student Retention Concern" is: Teacher → Assistant Principal or Counselor → Principal.
- Level 2: Formal complaint submission (KN Complaint Form).
- Level 3: Review by the Assistant Superintendent of Leadership (in this case Dr. Joycelyn Jackson signed the June 17 determination with Principal Hardnett).
- Level 4: Review at the Superintendent's level.
- Level 5: Review by the Board of Education.
Policy KN definitions: a concern/grievance is "any claim by a parent, student, or member of the public that an action, inaction, or operation of the School District or a Board of Education employee has negatively affected either them or a person subject to Board of Education policies and regulations... handled through informal discussion with the principal." A complaint is "a written submission which may allege that the action or lack of action, taken by a person in the school system... is in violation of Board Policy or applicable school law. These shall require formal action under this policy."
Case relevance: the rebuttal alleges the district failed to follow KN-R(1) by not contacting the complainant within the process's expected timeframes and by conducting an incomplete investigation. Records requests have continued through the Office of Legal Compliance (Karena Mitchell, Records Custodian) under FERPA, Georgia SDPATA (O.C.G.A. § 20-2-660 et seq.), and the Georgia Open Records Act (O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq.), with the Aug 14 letter setting an Aug 28, 2026 update deadline.
7. Case Facts: What the Record Shows
| Date | Event |
|---|
| Jan 15 - May 11, 2026 | Course assignments logged in Google Classroom and Infinite Campus; audit identifies 58 Google Classroom assignments, 10 graded entries, only 2 aligning with Infinite Campus |
| Apr 30, 2026 | EOC score of 61 entered into Infinite Campus — before the exam (actual exam May 20, earned 92.1-92.3) |
| May 21, 2026 | School posts final course grade of 62; three February-dated grades entered this day (during-winter-break entries) |
| May 21-29, 2026 | Formal grade disputes submitted to Principal Brandi Hardnett (May 21, May 22, May 29); teacher J. Baxter contacted May 29 |
| May 28, 2026 | Teacher calls Mr. Deaton after hours; admits being directed by the principal to "manage" the dispute, admits unsubmitted grades and manual overrides, claims student "missed half the semester" (attendance ledger shows 10 absences: 7 medical, 2 school-sanctioned per the audit; the district later reported 22 absences: 10 excused, 12 unexcused — a disputed fact) |
| Jun 1, 2026 | Formal IHA-R(2) submission received by the school |
| Jun 2, 2026 | Line-by-line class audit completed (5-page investigative summary) |
| Jun 17, 2026 | Principal Hardnett's written determination: grade corrected 62 → 69; passing grade and credit denied; credit recovery offered |
| Jun - Jul 2026 | Rebuttal complaint submitted challenging the determination (KN-R(1) escalation) |
| Jul 24, 2026 | Teacher attendance/substitute log produced under Open Records |
| Jul 31, 2026 | First records production (FERPA) |
| Aug 14, 2026 | Second Supplemental Response: for 8 of 8 requested classroom assignments, district states "No such records exist"; audit trail request still "being retrieved"; next update promised on or before Aug 28, 2026 |
8. What the District Admitted vs. What the Audit Found
| Issue | District's finding (Jun 17 letter) | Audit / rebuttal position |
|---|
| Missing Assessment Tasks category | Admitted: category not used; claimed assessments merged into Practice Work with equal weight and "did not materially change" the outcome | No calculation worksheet produced; under mandated 40/40/20, applying the student's actual Unit 1 formative (88) and EOC (92.3) yields 79.6 (passing) |
| EOC 61 entered Apr 30 | Admitted entry "appears to have been made in error"; claimed corrected before final posting; final used 92.1 | Entered 3 weeks before exam = fabrication, not clerical error; second EOC discrepancy (92.1 vs 92.3) shows pattern |
| Completed assignments at zero / omitted | Admitted several assignments in Google Classroom were never entered for any student; identified six zero assignments (two on 3/26, plus 4/2 x2, 4/13, 5/11); evidence did not support change | Gradebook shows seven zeros (not six); only one zero on 3/26; "ghost grades" with no digital footprint; assignments graded during Winter Break; 3/26 entry marked "Turned in" but zeroed |
| Unit 2 assessment omitted | Admitted omission; inserted score of 72 into Practice Work; recalculated 62.86 → 63.26 Practice average; final ≈ 69.0 | If placed in Assessment Tasks (as IHA-R(2) requires) at the audited 91, outcome is passing; the 72 is unsubstantiated |
| Attendance | 22 absences (10 excused, 12 unexcused) | Audit cites 10 absences (7 medical, 2 school-sanctioned) per the teacher's own ledger; attendance is disputed |
| Final grade | Corrected to 69; below passing 70; credit denied | Policy-compliant recalculation = 79.6 (passing); fully credited model = 89.74 |
9. The Grade Math, Side by Side
| Model | Practice Work | Assessment Tasks | EOC | Final | Result |
|---|
| School's reported grade (5/21) | 62.86 (at 80%) | Omitted | 61.00 (falsified entry) | 62 | FAIL |
| District's corrected (6/17) | 63.26 (at 40%) | 72 inserted into Practice | 92.1 (actual) | ≈ 69 | FAIL |
| Rebuttal policy-compliant | 64.75 (at 40%) | 88 (Unit 1 formative) | 92.3 | 79.6 | PASS (C) |
| Original complaint: audited & credited | 78.30 | 100 (default for admin omission) | 92.10 | 89.74 | PASS (B) |
The arithmetic that matters: under the mandated 40/40/20 with the teacher's own graded data (excluding the contested zeros), the student passes. The district's 69 depends on (a) folding assessments into Practice Work against the regulation's explicit category structure, and (b) inserting a 72 for an assessment the district admits it never graded. The rebuttal's core argument: a gradebook that cannot survive its own audit cannot produce a defensible failing grade.
10. Documented Policy Violations (per the complaint file)
- IHA-R(2) § I.C.1.a — Omission of the mandated Assessment Tasks category (40% of course architecture).
- IHA-R(2) § I.C.1.b — Failure to enter at least one academic grade per week and to enter grades weekly (no grades for 4 separate weeks between Mar 19 and May 22).
- IHA-R(2) § I.C.4.f — Failure to communicate with the parent for a student in danger of failing.
- IHA-R(2) § I.C.6 — Zeros applied outside the absence make-up procedure.
- GaPSC Rule 505-6-.01, Standard 4 (Honesty) — Pre-populating a failing EOC score on Apr 30 for an exam taken May 20; holding completed work at zero; grades logged during Winter Break; entries claiming completion before assignment dates.
- GaPSC Rule 505-6-.01, Standard 9 (Professional Conduct) — After-hours off-record call to subvert an official grievance while admitting manual gradebook manipulation.
- KN-R(1) — Alleged failure to contact the complainant within the process's timeframes and incomplete investigation.
- O.C.G.A. § 20-1-7 — Alleged submission of fraudulent academic records (raised in the rebuttal; criminal misdemeanor provision).
11. Next Steps & Escalation Options
Immediate (by Aug 28, 2026)
- Await the district's Aug 28 records update from the Office of Legal Compliance (Karena Mitchell). The Aug 14 letter explicitly promises an update on the audit-trail request and remaining records by then. Track it; a missed deadline is itself a process failure to cite.
- Schedule the records inspection meeting offered for "all Assessment Tasks completed during the semester" (contact Principal Hardnett at 603 Walker Drive). Go in person, document who attends, take contemporaneous notes, request copies of everything shown.
- File the KN-R(1) Level 2 formal complaint if not already done (the rebuttal references a KN complaint; confirm it is formally logged with the district, not just sent to the principal). Use the district's KN Complaint Form.
Escalation ladder (if the grade is not corrected)
- Level 3: Assistant Superintendent of Leadership (Dr. Joycelyn Jackson signed the determination; escalate the rebuttal formally to her office with the audit exhibits).
- Level 4: Superintendent Mary Elizabeth Davis (Henry County Schools).
- Level 5: Henry County Board of Education.
- GaPSC complaint — Georgia Professional Standards Commission accepts ethics complaints against certified educators (Rule 505-6-.01 violations; Standard 4 and Standard 9 cited). This is the body that can discipline a teacher for falsifying grades.
- Georgia Department of Education — complaint route for district policy/regulation non-compliance.
- GOSA — Governor's Office of Student Achievement, for data-integrity and reporting concerns.
- Office for Civil Rights (US DOE) — only if a protected-class discrimination angle exists; not indicated by the current record, listed for completeness.
- Legal counsel — O.C.G.A. § 20-1-7 (fraudulent academic records) and § 20-2-989.20 (grade integrity) are the statutory hooks. A demand letter citing both, the admitted gradebook irregularities, and the district's own "no such records exist" responses is a reasonable next step if internal levels fail. (Not legal advice; consult a Georgia education attorney.)
Timing watch: grade-change windows are real constraints (the district cited a June 11, 2026 Grade Repair window). The 15-school-day review window was satisfied. Any further internal challenge should be made in writing, dated, and reference the pending Aug 28 records update. Do not let the fall semester's credit-recovery clock run without a paper trail.
12. Source Documents & Citations
| Document | Source / Link |
|---|
| Regulation IHA-R(2): Grading Systems (2019-2020 and beyond), adopted 5/13/2019, revised 6/15/2026 | Henry County Schools Board Policy Manual, simbli.eboardsolutions.com (S=4088); copy provided in case file |
| 2026-2027 Districtwide K-12 Student and Parent Handbook | henry.k12.ga.us → Student Handbooks |
| HCS Grading Systems Policy Overview (Parent/Guardian info) | henry.k12.ga.us → Parent Guides → Grading Guides |
| Board Policy KN: Complaints | henry.k12.ga.us → Complaints & Grievances |
| Regulation KN-R(1): Complaints — Procedures (5 levels) | simbli.eboardsolutions.com (S=4088); process described on Constituent Services page |
| GaPSC Rule 505-6-.01: Code of Ethics for Educators | gapsc.com |
| O.C.G.A. § 20-1-7; § 20-2-989.20; § 20-2-660 (SDPATA); § 50-18-70 (GORA); FERPA 20 U.S.C. 1232g | Georgia Code / federal statute |
| Case file: Original Complaint, Class Audit, Rebuttal Complaint, Luella Complaint Response (6/17/26), Records Production (7/31/26), Second Supplemental Response (8/14/26), Teacher Warrant Affidavit, screenshots | Provided by N. Deaton via email 2026-08-17; retained at /root/projects/luella-research/nick-docs/ |
Prepared by Sho'Nuff (IT Pro Partner ops engineer) for Nicholas Deaton. Policy citations are verbatim from the cited district documents; case facts are from the complaint file and district responses as described. This document is informational research, not legal advice. Student records referenced herein should be shared only with parties entitled to them under FERPA.