District Wins: 8th Grader's Request for Partial Home Instruction and Shorter School Days Denied

A mother filed for due process seeking to require Dixie Elementary School District to place her 8th-grade son with emotional disturbance on a shortened schedule — three days at school and two days of home instruction per week. The ALJ found that the district's offer of full-time school attendance was appropriate, that the parent's evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the student could not be educated five days a week, and that partial home placement would have violated California's legal requirements for home instruction. All of the student's requests were denied.

What Happened

Student was a 13-year-old eighth grader at Miller Creek Middle School, eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance and also receiving occupational therapy for mild motor difficulties. Starting in sixth grade, Parent — a licensed marriage and family therapist — had repeatedly asked the district to allow Student to attend school only three days a week (with a six-period day) and receive home instruction on the two days she worked from home. The district declined each time and instead offered a full five-day program with a range of supports, including specialized academic instruction, individual and parent counseling, occupational therapy, breaks, and access to the school counselor. Parent accepted some of these services but refused others, and continued to push for partial home placement. Student's attendance at school was approximately 40 percent — he frequently arrived late, left early, or did not come at all — and was failing most classes as a result.

Parent argued that Student suffered from Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD) and severe anxiety that made full-time school attendance impossible. She presented letters from several outside professionals — a clinical psychologist, a child neurologist, and a private occupational therapist — supporting her request. However, none of these professionals appeared at the IEP team meetings or at the hearing to testify. The district's own staff — including the school psychologist, the assigned occupational therapist, and Student's resource specialist — observed Student directly and saw no signs of SPD or anxiety that would prevent full-time attendance. They concluded that Student's absences reflected his personal preference not to attend school, encouraged by Parent, rather than a clinical inability to cope.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district on all three issues. The parent's claims were denied for the following reasons:

On partial home placement and shortened school days: The outside professionals' letters were given little weight because none of the authors appeared to testify, leaving the IEP team (and the ALJ) unable to evaluate the basis for their opinions, their qualifications, or what information they had been given. By contrast, the district's qualified staff — who knew Student, had observed him directly, and participated in IEP meetings — credibly testified that Student showed no signs of SPD in school, that his absences were driven by preference rather than medical necessity, and that partial home placement would actually worsen his anxiety by making school re-entry harder. California law also requires a physician's or psychologist's report certifying that the severity of a student's condition prevents attendance at a less restrictive placement before home instruction can be offered — and no such compliant report existed here.

On hard copy assignments: The evidence showed that Student could use the district's online assignment system (School Loop) without difficulty and that Parent herself used it regularly — including to download Student's grades the night before the hearing. The district had offered to train Parent and her private tutors. Requiring teachers to prepare hard copy assignments would have required them to predict and potentially encourage absences.

On staff tone: There was no credible evidence of a pattern of staff speaking harshly to Student. The only incidents cited were a teacher yelling at other students years earlier and a principal giving a single stern reminder about tardiness.

What Was Ordered

The district's motion to strike new factual allegations raised for the first time in Parent's closing argument was granted.
All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was found to have prevailed on all three issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Letters from outside professionals carry more weight when those professionals testify. In this case, the ALJ gave little weight to letters from a psychologist, a neurologist, and an occupational therapist because none of them appeared at IEP meetings or at the hearing. If you are relying on outside expert opinions to support a placement request, those experts should be willing to attend IEP meetings or testify — not just write letters.
California law sets a high legal bar for home instruction. Before a district can place a student on home instruction, a physician or psychologist must certify in writing that the severity of the student's condition prevents attendance at a less restrictive setting, and must include a projected return-to-school date. Without that documentation, even a sympathetic IEP team cannot legally offer home placement.
A student's pattern of attendance matters to how the ALJ interprets the evidence. The ALJ noted that Student attended school roughly when he chose to, rather than when his condition required it, and that Parent encouraged this flexibility. This pattern undermined the argument that a medical condition — rather than personal preference — was preventing full-time attendance.
Refusing parts of the district's IEP offer can weaken your due process case. Parent declined counseling, an additional period of specialized instruction, and the social skills group — all of which were specifically designed to address Student's anxiety and school avoidance. When a district offers a reasonable range of supports and a parent declines them, it becomes harder to argue that the district failed to address the student's needs.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district on all three issues. The parent's claims were denied for the following reasons:

What Was Ordered

The district's motion to strike new factual allegations raised for the first time in Parent's closing argument was granted.
All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was found to have prevailed on all three issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Letters from outside professionals carry more weight when those professionals testify. In this case, the ALJ gave little weight to letters from a psychologist, a neurologist, and an occupational therapist because none of them appeared at IEP meetings or at the hearing. If you are relying on outside expert opinions to support a placement request, those experts should be willing to attend IEP meetings or testify — not just write letters.
California law sets a high legal bar for home instruction. Before a district can place a student on home instruction, a physician or psychologist must certify in writing that the severity of the student's condition prevents attendance at a less restrictive setting, and must include a projected return-to-school date. Without that documentation, even a sympathetic IEP team cannot legally offer home placement.
A student's pattern of attendance matters to how the ALJ interprets the evidence. The ALJ noted that Student attended school roughly when he chose to, rather than when his condition required it, and that Parent encouraged this flexibility. This pattern undermined the argument that a medical condition — rather than personal preference — was preventing full-time attendance.
Refusing parts of the district's IEP offer can weaken your due process case. Parent declined counseling, an additional period of specialized instruction, and the social skills group — all of which were specifically designed to address Student's anxiety and school avoidance. When a district offers a reasonable range of supports and a parent declines them, it becomes harder to argue that the district failed to address the student's needs.