The State Board of Education amended and approved R277-717, the high school course grading requirements, clarifying that “a student may not use a packet, and an LEA may not designate a packet as original credit to improve a previous course grade of a high school student consistent with R277-705-39.” The amendment and the final rule passed unanimously with one member absent (Member Davis).

Member Lear proposed the amendment to line 62 after raising concerns that the draft language could be read as naming only LEAs as actors and could leave students or parents unclear about whether packets could be used to replace prior grades. “A student may not use the packet method, and an LEA may not designate the packet as original credit to improve a previous course grade of a high school student,” Lear moved on the floor.

Elise, deputy superintendent of policy, told the board that state law (referred to in the meeting as HP 191) places authority for approving packets with LEAs. She added that a related statute (transcribed as 53G-7206) requires an LEA to accept a transcript presented by a student from another entity without editing — a gap that the board’s rule cannot directly address. “The law governs in HP 191, which is the bill that governs this area, says that it's really up to the LEA to approve the packet and to make it available,” Elise said. She explained the practical issue: students can obtain packets from sources that are not public LEAs and therefore not governed by the board’s rule, and when those entities submit transcripts, LEAs may be required by separate statute to accept them.

During debate, Member Kelly said she did not see how a student could unilaterally decide what appears on a transcript and argued the LEA is the decision maker for transcript designation. Member Boggess asked whether packets are intended to give students a path to replace failing grades; Member Lear replied that the amendment’s intent was to prevent substituting a packet for a previously completed course grade.

Board members then voted on the amendment and the underlying rule. The amendment to R277-717 (line 62) passed unanimously with one absent, and the board then approved R277-717 on second and final reading unanimously with Member Davis absent.

Staff identified the limitation of the board’s rule: it governs LEAs but cannot change statutory obligations that require LEAs to accept outside transcripts in some cases. The board did not further modify the rule in this session.