If Joseph passed the course at college, credit would be transferred back, and respondent board would issue a diploma to Joseph. Apparently, Joseph rejected these options. The stay request was denied on July 6, 1993. Petitioner contends that respondent board has improperly prevented her son from attending summer school. Respondent board contends that its policy is reasonable and educationally sound and was initiated to encourage attendance at school during the regular school year and to discourage students from viewing the shorter summer session as an alternative to regular school attendance.
Petitioner offers no argument to counter respondent board's contention.
Therefore, petitioner's argument that this policy is improper is rejected. Petitioner also contends that the policy should not apply to her son because she had no notice of the policy and because such policy was developed by the superintendent and not the board of education. These contentions are without merit. The record reflects that respondent board has been applying its summer school admittance policy since at least the 1986-87 school year and that copies of the policy are sent to parents and students on a yearly basis. There is no evidence that petitioner did not receive a copy of the policy per respondents' ordinary practice.