Luella High School - Grading Policy Research Package

Missing assignments · parent communication · grade entry requirements · grade challenge process
Prepared for Nicholas Deaton · Student: Gage Deaton (11th grade) · Course: American Literature and Composition, Spring 2026

Last updated: 2026-08-21 (revision 2)

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, the classroom audit, and the Investigative Summary that Mr. Deaton provided.

What changed in revision 2 (2026-08-21). This update incorporates the Investigative Summary (a 21-page day-by-day parent investigation dated 05/21 through 06/12/2026 plus a communications log) and the forwarded case file received 08/17 through 08/19. It adds the counselor non-communication pattern, the precise false-EOCT arithmetic (62.48), the line-by-line 25-entry grade audit, the seven fraudulent entries, the ACT/SAT Prep systemic issue, the second EOCT discrepancy, and the post-Level-4 record: Level 5 grievance, the O.C.G.A. § 20-2-786(e)(1)(G)(ii) records appeal, and the "live in the portal" evidence of 08/16. See the Complete Case Timeline and Revision History below.

The Three Requested Policies
Policy: Missing Assignments & Make-Up Work
Policy: Parent Communication When a Student Is at Risk
Policy: Entering Grades Into the System
Policy: Grade Review / Challenge Process
Policy: Complaint Process (KN-R(1), 5 Levels)
Complete Case Timeline (chronological)
New Findings from the Investigative Summary
What the District Admitted vs. What the Audit Found
The Grade Math, Side by Side
Documented Policy Violations
Current Status, Next Steps & Escalation Options
Source Documents & Citations
Revision History / Last Updated

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. The same silence extended to the counselor: the mother attempted to reach counselor Felicia McKinley all semester with no response, and McKinley's first email reply came on 05/22, the last day of the school year.

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 revision, 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. Complete Case Timeline (chronological)

Merged from the complaint file, the Investigative Summary (05/21-06/12/2026), and the forwarded case email (through 08/16/2026). Dates are as they appear in the record.

Date	Event
Jan 13, 2026	Scarlett Letter Quiz assigned (due 01/14); scored 82/100 but never entered into Infinite Campus.
Jan 15, 2026	Getty Address assignment due; Gage received special permission to submit in writing (laptop issues) and completed it. Recorded as 0/100 in Infinite Campus.
Jan 15 - May 11, 2026	Course window. 58 Google Classroom assignments, 10 graded entries, only 2 that align with Infinite Campus.
Jan 21-28, 2026	8 Google Classroom assignments with no corresponding grade entered.
Feb 23 - Mar 2, 2026	9 more assignments with no grade. Unit 2 Formative completed in Renaissance DnA but left "Scores pending for written responses" - never graded, never entered.
Mar 2, 2026	"Writing assignment phase 1" entered as 88 before the assignment was even issued (03/09). A false entry.
Apr 14 - May 22, 2026	Only one graded assignment in the final five weeks. Gage submitted five assignments; Baxter returned 89/100 and 82/100 on two of them (05/11) but never recorded any into Infinite Campus.
Apr 30, 2026	False EOCT score of 61 entered - three weeks before the May 20 exam. 61 × 20% + 62.86 × 80% = 62.48, matching the posted 62.
May 20, 2026	Actual EOCT taken. Renaissance DnA records 92.31 ("Distinguished" 24/26), but the Constructed Response section remains unevaluated ("- / 2").
May 21, 2026	Final grade 62 posted. A 92.1 entered on Infinite Campus (DnA shows 92.31). Four February-dated grades entered this day (90+ days late). Graduation Coach Silas emails that Gage is not on track to graduate.
May 22, 2026	Counselor McKinley's first reply all semester (last day of school) confirms the 62. Nick emails Principal Hardnett about the grade discrepancy and the fraudulent EOC entry.
May 23, 2026	Nick documents the missing Assessment Tasks category and the 40/40/20 violation.
May 28, 2026	In-person site visit (message left with bookkeeper S. Fields). Baxter calls after hours (404-804-1835), admits Hardnett directed him to "manage" the dispute, admits giving unearned grades, claims Gage "missed half the semester" (attendance ledger shows 10 absences).
May 29, 2026	Hardnett emails the grade will not change (states 63; posted 62). Nick requests a formal audit.
Jun 1, 2026	7:58 a.m. formal KN Complaint delivered in person to Dr. Underwood, who initially refuses to sign, then texts receipt and forwards it to Hardnett.
Jun 2, 2026	Line-by-line class audit completed (25 entries).
Jun 5, 2026	KN-R(1) five-working-day contact deadline expires with no contact from Hardnett.
Jun 6, 2026	Level 3 escalation to Dr. Joycelyn Jackson (Assistant Superintendent), citing IHA-R(2) and GaPSC 505-6-.01 Standards 4 and 9.
Jun 8, 2026	Dr. Jackson acknowledges; Investigator Erin Sears (Legal Compliance) assigned.
Jun 9-10, 2026	Sears forwards the complaint to Hardnett and confirms it is a valid policy violation; processing through the principal.
Jun 12, 2026	Second EOCT discrepancy (92.31 vs 92.1; ungraded Constructed Response) reported to Dr. Jackson.
Jun 17-18, 2026	Principal Hardnett's written determination: grade corrected 62 → 69; passing grade and credit denied. Findings emailed Jun 18 at 10:13 a.m.
Jun 21, 2026	Level 4 appeal emailed to the Deputy Superintendent and Legal Compliance.
Jun 23, 2026	Level 4 appeal sent by certified mail (9589 0710 5270 3675 6710 53).
Jun 27, 2026	Email to the Deputy Superintendent for failing to respond to the Level 4 appeal.
Jun 29, 2026	Nick notifies he is filing complaints with the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GaPSC, teacher and principal certifications) and the Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA, grade audit).
Jul 7, 2026	Level 5 grievance emailed to the Board of Education (received by the district Jul 8).
Jul 13, 2026	Level 5 grievance certified-mail copy received by the district.
Jul 14, 2026	Senior Conference. Nick formally requests an alternative Algebra teacher for Fall 2026, citing a language-proficiency barrier (a separate, parallel issue).
Jul 24, 2026	Teacher attendance/substitute log produced under Open Records.
Jul 31, 2026	First records production (FERPA); page 6 lists assignment grades by date.
Aug 14, 2026	Second Supplemental Response: for 8 of 8 requested classroom assignments, the district states "No such records exist"; update promised on or before Aug 28, 2026.
Aug 16, 2026	Nick and Gage locate the "non-existent" assignments live in the district curriculum portal (25 assignments listed). A formal notice of appeal is filed under O.C.G.A. § 20-2-786(e)(1)(G)(ii) for failure to provide responsive records and administrative contradictions; an Open Government Mediation complaint is acknowledged.
Aug 28, 2026	Pending: the district's promised update on the remaining records and the audit-trail request.

8. New Findings from the Investigative Summary

8.1 The counselor was unreachable all semester

Stephanie Deaton attempted to reach counselor Felicia McKinley all semester with no response; she called multiple times and emailed repeatedly. McKinley answered the phone once and never returned the call. Her first and only email response came on 05/22/2026, the last day of the school year, and it did not address any of the semester's questions - it only confirmed Gage failed with a 62. Gage never spoke with McKinley at all and sought out the Graduation Coach (Ms. Silas) instead. This silence runs parallel to the teacher's failure to communicate under IHA-R(2) § I.C.4.f, and the counselor's own job description (which Mr. Deaton pulled and cited) requires "consulting with parents" and "facilitating home and school communication."

8.2 The false EOC score is arithmetically exact

Baxter entered a 61 as the EOCT on 04/30/2026, three weeks before the exam. The math lines up to the posted grade: Practice Work 62.86 at 80% plus the false EOCT 61 at 20% equals 62.48 - the posted 62. The false score was the mechanism that held the grade down. Separately, the real EOCT is recorded twice incorrectly: Renaissance DnA shows 92.31 ("Distinguished," 24/26) while Infinite Campus shows 92.1, and the only two questions Gage missed were the Constructed Responses that require teacher grading - which were never graded.

8.3 The line-by-line audit (25 entries)

Getty Address (due 01/15): completed with special written-submission permission; recorded 0/100.
Scarlett Letter: an "unknown assignment" recorded 100/100, while the actual Scarlett Letter Quiz (82/100, due 01/14) was never entered - two different items conflated.
"Ghost" CommonLit worksheets 1-6: six entries dated across 02/10-02/20 (several during Winter Break) with no matching digital assignment; four of them graded on 05/21 for February work, 90+ days late.
"Writing assignment phase 1": entered 88 on 03/02, a full week before the assignment was issued (03/09). "Phase 2" and "Writing assignment 3" have no Google Classroom counterpart at all.
Research Paper Presentation (04/02): the only assignment Baxter ever marked "missing" in Infinite Campus - evidence he knew how to flag a missing assignment and chose not to elsewhere.
Final Study Guide (05/11): zeroed, with no Google Classroom entry, no email, and no due date.

Across the semester: 58 Google Classroom assignments, 10 graded entries, and only 2 that align with Infinite Campus.

8.4 Seven blatant fraudulent entries, scaled across the class

Nick's count: 3 fraudulent entries during Winter Break, 3 fraudulent entries in March, and 1 fraudulent EOCT entry in April = 7 blatant entries. At 26 students in the course, that is 182 grade entries in question, and 26 students who had 40% of their grade (the Assessment Tasks category) omitted. This reframes the dispute from a single student's grade to a systemic gradebook-integrity failure.

8.5 The ACT/SAT Prep course shows the same defect (systemic)

William Richardson's ACT/SAT Preparation course used the same broken architecture: only a Practice Work category (no Assessment Tasks), with "Dress-Out / Participation" repeated 36 times in Fall 2025 and 31 times in Spring 2026. Gage described the class as football workout time disguised as coursework. If the same pattern exists in Richardson's other sections and other teachers' courses, the school is posting incorrect grades at scale. This is a separate issue from the American Literature grade, but it is strong evidence that the grading defect is systemic, not isolated to one teacher.

8.6 The district's "no such records exist" claim is contradicted by its own portal

On 08/16/2026, Nick and Gage found the very assignments the district's Aug 14 letter claimed did not exist - live in the curriculum portal (25 assignments listed, including the CommonLit and ACT/SAT materials). The Aug 14 letter said "no records exist" for 8 of 8 requested items; the assignments are present in the district's own system. This is the basis for the O.C.G.A. § 20-2-786(e)(1)(G)(ii) appeal (failure to provide responsive records) filed 08/16.

9. 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; 61 × 20% + 62.86 × 80% = 62.48 (the posted 62); second EOC discrepancy (92.31 vs 92.1) shows a 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; Renaissance DnA shows the Unit 2 Formative was never graded
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

10. 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 posted 62 was produced by a false EOCT entry: 62.86 × 80% + 61 × 20% = 62.48. The rebuttal's core argument: a gradebook that cannot survive its own audit cannot produce a defensible failing grade.

11. 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; only one graded assignment across the final five weeks).
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 (five-working-day deadline missed) and incomplete investigation.
O.C.G.A. § 20-1-7 - Alleged submission of fraudulent academic records (raised in the rebuttal; criminal misdemeanor provision).
O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 (Georgia Open Records Act) / § 20-2-786 - "No such records exist" contradicted by the assignments found live in the district's own curriculum portal (08/16); basis of the records appeal.

12. Current Status, Next Steps & Escalation Options

Where the case stands (as of 2026-08-21)

Grade: still 69, credit denied. No grade-change has been granted at any level.
Complaint ladder: Level 3 decision received 06/18; Level 4 appeal filed 06/21 (email) and 06/23 (certified mail); Level 5 grievance filed 07/07 (certified copy received 07/13), acknowledged by Investigator Erin Sears and under review by four district offices.
Records: Second Supplemental Response (08/14) says "no such records exist" for 8 of 8 items; those items were located live in the district curriculum portal on 08/16; a formal appeal under O.C.G.A. § 20-2-786(e)(1)(G)(ii) and an Open Government Mediation complaint have been filed.
External bodies: GaPSC (teacher and principal certifications) and GOSA (grade audit) complaints announced 06/29.

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.
Preserve the 08/16 "live in the portal" evidence - screenshots, URLs, timestamps, and the 25-assignment list from the curriculum portal. This directly contradicts the district's "no such records exist" claim and is the strongest new exhibit.
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.

Escalation ladder (remaining, if the grade is not corrected)

Level 5 - Board of Education: already filed (07/07). Confirm the board has calendared it and request a written disposition.
GaPSC complaint - formal ethics complaint against the teacher (Standards 4 and 9) and, if warranted, the principal's certification. Announced; confirm it was actually filed and keep the confirmation.
GOSA - Governor's Office of Student Achievement, the body that audits class grades and data integrity.
Open Government Mediation (Georgia AG's office) - already acknowledged; the records-non-production claim is squarely within its scope.
Georgia Department of Education - complaint route for district policy/regulation non-compliance.
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), § 20-2-989.20 (grade integrity), and § 20-2-786 / § 50-18-70 (records) are the statutory hooks. A demand letter citing the admitted gradebook irregularities and the "no records" contradiction 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. Note the parallel Algebra-teacher request (alternative teacher, language-proficiency barrier) is a separate track and should be tracked independently.

13. 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; § 20-2-786; § 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/
Investigative Summary (21 pp., 05/21-06/12/2026, plus communications log)	N. Deaton via Google Docs, 2026-08-17; retained at /root/projects/luella-research/nick-docs/new-batch/
Forwarded case file (08/17-08/19): Formal Notice of Appeal O.C.G.A. § 20-2-786(e)(1)(G)(ii); Open Government Mediation receipt; Level 5 grievance; Level 4 appeal; "no records" contradiction; curriculum-portal evidence; ACT/SAT and CommonLit exhibits; Algebra-teacher request	N. Deaton via email (himalaya msgs 59-63); .eml files forwarded via Google Drive

14. Revision History / Last Updated

Date	Revision	Summary
2026-08-17	v1	Initial research package: three policies, case facts, district-vs-audit comparison, grade math, violations, escalation ladder. Live at proposals.itpropartner.com/luella-research/.
2026-08-21	v2 (current)	Incorporated the Investigative Summary and the forwarded 08/17-08/19 case file. Added the Complete Case Timeline (chronological), counselor non-communication, the 62.48 false-EOCT arithmetic, the 25-entry line-by-line audit, the seven fraudulent entries, the ACT/SAT systemic finding, the second EOCT discrepancy, the Level 5 grievance and O.C.G.A. § 20-2-786 records appeal, and the "live in the portal" evidence of 08/16.

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, the Investigative Summary, and the 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.