Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homebound Instruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews homebound instruction policy; staff stresses medical referral process and multistep eligibility
Summary
The policy committee examined proposed Policy 1-17 on homebound instruction, clarifying that homebound services are permissive, typically used for up to 90 days for medical reasons, and that eligibility depends on medical referrals plus school nurse and student‑services review.
Wallingford‑Swarthmore School District policy reviewers on May 6 discussed a proposed update to Policy 1‑17 governing homebound instruction, clarifying when the district provides in‑home instruction for students unable to attend school for medical reasons.
The policy is intended to guide district practice when students are medically unable to attend school for extended periods. ‘‘Homebound is a permissive service that school districts can generally offer,’’ said Dr. Mary McCullough, director of student services, noting that approval depends on medical referrals and local assessment rather than reimbursement status. She added that the district typically provides homebound instruction for students who are unable to attend school for about 90 days (approximately three months).
Committee members asked how determinations are made and whether discipline‑related exclusions would trigger homebound instruction. McCullough said eligibility rests on a physician’s referral and the student being unable to attend for a prolonged period; discipline‑related exclusions alone do not create entitlement absent a medical determination. ‘‘Every homebound referral is made through the form on the website that a physician fills out… they have to be unable to come to school for 90 days or 3 months,’’ she said.
Members also pressed about subjectivity and the district’s decision process. McCullough described a multilayered review: physician referral, school nurse and behavioral‑health specialists’ input, and final review in the student‑services office. She noted one change in practice: for renewals the state now makes determinations in some cases, shifting parts of the renewal review away from the student‑services office.
The committee suggested edits to make the purpose statement clearer for lay readers and to ensure the AR provides a clear, accessible process for families. Staff agreed to revise the wording and the AR to better explain the referral form, the physician’s role, and the multilayered review process.
No board vote occurred; the draft policy and AR will be revised and returned to committee.
