This appeal ensued. Petitioner alleges, among other things, that by holding the hearing without the parents' attendance and compelling her son's attendance over her objections, respondent denied her son due process. Petitioner also alleges that respondent erred by improperly considering her son's anecdotal report because its contents go beyond the charges against him. In addition, petitioner claims that her son's failure to attend his physical education class constitutes neither insubordination nor disorderly conduct as charged. Moreover, petitioner argues that excluding her son from school for the remaining six months of the school year for cutting four physical education classes constitutes an excessive penalty.
Petitioner seeks an order reversing the superintendent's decision and dismissing the charges.
In the alternative, petitioner seeks a new hearing, scheduled upon proper notice, and an order immediately returning Craig to school pending a new hearing. Respondent argues that petitioner was not denied due process because the notice of the hearing prepared by the district was received by the post office for delivery by certified mail ten days before the scheduled hearing. Respondent asserts that the hearing officer's review of the student's anecdotal record after finding the student guilty of the charges, was proper. Respondent further maintains that its charges against the student based on his cutting classes do not involve truancy but constitute insubordination and disorderly conduct, which subjects him to suspension. Respondent also asserts that its decision to suspend Craig for the balance of the school year was proper since his failure to attend physical education continued, despite several warnings.