Petitioner maintains that respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously when they refused to grant her son credit for English 12 even though he received a passing grade in that course. In this instance, respondents have refused to give a student credit for a grade he earned in another school district. I have reviewed respondents' contentions on this issue and find them without merit. Accordingly, petitioner's son must be granted credit for the grade he received in English 12 from the Rochester City School District. Respondents' truancy policy provides that a student who misses a specified number of class periods will be denied credit for the courses and will be removed from the class.
Petitioner maintains that respondents' policy is arbitrary and capricious.
Specifically, petitioner notes that respondents' policy imposes academic sanctions, i.e. , denial of course credit for unexcused absences but not excused absences. I find that argument unpersuasive. As a disciplinary policy, it is improper, since it results in the suspension of a student from a particular class because of truancy. Notably, truancy is omitted from ' 3214 as a basis for suspension. Therefore, I conclude that school authorities are not empowered under ' 3214 to suspend students for truancy . . .