Response says
Disagrees with systemic assistive-device delays, citing Education Code section 56040.3, home/school use agreements, parent training and procurement review.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F7
Placements, assistive devices, home support and student dignity
What should residents consider about Finding F7: Placements, assistive devices, home support and student dignity, and the County’s response?
Colusa County Superintendent of Schools and Assistant Superintendent of Special Education/SELPAAudit assessment: Partially addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
Assistive technology and home training are substantively matched, but the response’s paraphrase omits placement delays and privacy/dignity deficiencies. Its disagreement does not address those material components.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
3/4
Statutory elements
- Stated position
- 2/2
- Applicable disagreement elements
- 1/2
5/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 1/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 2/2
Explicit disagreement (2), incomplete reasons on placement and dignity (1), partial coverage (1), concrete home-use procedures (2), identified Education Code section 56040.3 (2).
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Review the underlying documents
Public participation
Discuss the finding and response
Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.
Loading the Pol.is conversation...