The parties in this appeal stipulated to the following facts: 1) The teacher used the same grading procedures in her Spanish III and Spanish IV classes; 2)The grade is a percentage of total points converted to a letter grade; 3)The final grade for Spanish III and Spanish IV is a percentage of the total points for both quarters (1st and 2nd nine-week periods) added together for a semester grade; and 4)Casey earned a total of 770 points out of a possible 831 (92.7%) for the entire first semester of Spanish IV. The gist of Appellants argument is that the total number of possible points available for the first semester was inequitably allocated by the teacher between the 2 nine-week quarters. 530 were allocated to the first quarter; 301 to the second quarter. Appellants characterized this allocation as a failure to give students an opportunity to improve the final semester grade if the first quarter grade left room for improvement. Appellants argue that the teacher's failure to make the specifics of the point allocation known ahead of time is so unfair as to compel relief to Casey.

The relief sought is to have Casey's grade for the first semester of Spanish IV changed from an A- to an A, or in the alternative to not count the A- toward his overall grade point average. Failing either of options, the family asks that Casey be given the opportunity to do extra credit to raise his grade. Finally, Appellants ask that the District do more to make the teacher's grading policies known to students. The high school principal testified that weekly progress reports are available to any student's family upon request. During the first quarter, Casey had a "D" on one test; received no credit for one worksheet and received only 50% on another worksheet. Casey had a B+ at the mid-term of the first quarter. The grading sheets show that there were 11 students and that six of them earned an A or A- for the final semester grade. Casey earned 286 of the 301 possible point during the second quarter. A 12-class period project during the second quarter (26.7% of the class time) was not graded at all. Appellants contend that the provision of no points for this project contributed to Casey's inability to improve his grade for the semester.

In two previous cases involving grading policies, the State Board affirmed the local boards' decisions not to change the challenged grades. 3 DPI 113(1983) and 18 DOE 10(1999). Factors such as whether the policy was fair "on its face," was known to the students and was consistently applied were examined.

Casey had a goal of graduating from high school with a 4.0 grade point average. The goal was not taken from him by the teacher or district administrators; Casey was the master of his fate at all times. There is nothing to support Appellants' claim that Casey's grade was unfair.

The teacher's academic freedom is being called into question as well. A Federal court of appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that school officials violated the instructor's rights to academic freedom when they ordered a grade change. 868 F2d 821(6th Cir. 1989). This is not to imply that local school boards and administrators have no authority to review a teacher's grading practices or to modify an individual student's grade, in cases involving clerical or mechanical mistakes, fraud, incompetence or bad faith.

That the March 10, 2003, decision of the Board of Directors of the Dike-New Hartford Community School District, leaving Casey M.'s grade unchanged for the first semester, was affirmed.