Beginning with the 1995-96 school year, the Waterloo School District's Board of Directors decided to introduce a restrictive new attendance policy to stem the tide of absenteeism witnessed during the previous school year. Keith Boenig managed to incur his third truancy by September 12, 1995. Less than a month after school started he had been expelled for the remainder of the trimester. He got no credit for the first trimester and would not be allowed to return to school until November 22, 1995. Appellant testified that she and Keith both discussed the details of the District's new attendance policy and she felt that Keith understood what was required of him. For her own part, Appellant was aware that under the terms of the policy, she would be contacted if Keith was "truant."

The box for "head-of-household contact" was checked on the discipline referral form. (Exh. 8.) The discipline referral form also stated that Keith was given a three-day in-school suspension from 9-12-95 to 9-14-95. The form reflected that a "conference was requested 9-12/9-13/9-14." There was no mention of the identify of the person contacted by the school. Appellant testified at the hearing that she did not speak to anyone at the school after the second truancy. The assistant principal testified that she had called Appellant's home and left a message requesting a conference on the telephone answering machine. As Appellant quickly pointed out, her son who was truant that day most certainly erased that message because she never received it. It appears to the hearing panel that the Board violated its own policy when it failed to notify "the head of household" upon Keith's first truancy. Although Counsel for the District argued that all the policy requires is that the principal "attempt to contact the head of household," we believe that more is required when expulsion from school is at stake. We agree that the policy itself does not require a particular type of notice, whether it be a personal conversation, conference or letter addressed to the home, but that is not the problem. When the principal or designee was required by policy to "notify the head of household," we believe the purpose of that notice was to communicate that an attendance problem does exist with the student and hopefully, some strategy for intervention can be devised between the parent and the school. The notice that is required under this type of policy is simply that which will reasonably be calculated to apprise the necessary party.

As the State Board has said previously, when school officials deviate from the terms of the District's policy, the circumstances are ripe for a charge of arbitrariness or capricious action. "Board policies and the regulations adopted to implement the policies are the 'laws' of the school district. The policy manual serves both as notice to a district's students, parents, and employees of the school board's position on various subjects and as a guide for its own governance so that decisions are not made ... on an ad hoc basis." In re Jed and Tessa Thompson, 10 D.o.E. App. Dec. 195, 201 (1993). The school officials' failure to follow the District's policy as to Keith's situation is grounds for reversal.

We would suggest that the Board remove the evidence of Keith Boenig's disciplinary action from his record and give him a reasonable opportunity along with enough support to enable him to make up his missed school work from the first trimester if he chooses to do so. See, In re Scott Sadler, 2 D.P.I. App. Dec. 164 (1980). The loss of one trimester of school is significant to an at-risk student. See, In re Jason Clawson, 7 D.o.E. App. Dec. 271 (1990).

the decision of the Board of Directors of the Waterloo Community School District, made on September 25, 1995, expelling Keith Boenig for the first trimester of the 1995-96 school year and the accompanying loss of credit that is attached to the expulsion, was reversed.