Kyle was an eleventh grade student and prior to being suspended from participating in extracurricular activities, he had participated in basketball, baseball, and football. Kyle's first violation of the good conduct rule occurred in September 2001. He had been arrested for possession of stolen property and possession of a control substance. His second violation occurred in November 2001 for smoking in his car at an intersection in Indianola. A review committee agreed with the administration's decide that Kyle had violated the good conduct policy for a second time.

Appellant appealed to the Board and a special meeting was held on December 4, 2001. The Board confirmed the Review Committee's and Administration's decisions and Appellant then appealed to the State Board of Education. Appellant argued that the Board should be reversed because the punishment was excessive, Kyle's due process rights were violated, the infraction occurred off school grounds, and the good conduct agreement was good for that school year.

Because of the leadership role of students who participates in extracurricular activities, their conduct, even out of school, directly affects the good order and welfare of the school. The administrative law judge concluded that the good conduct policy in question was valid in its scope.

The State Board had previously been asked to rule on the severity of penalties. Although it expressed concern about good conduct policies that "focus more on 'sanctions' than on 'solutions'," the State Board determined that a "one-year penalty is not 'unreasonable' per se." In re Bryce Ricklefs, 16 D.o.E. App. Dec 300, 310(1999).

That the decision of the Indianola Community School District's Board of Directors, made on December 4, 2001, was affirmed