Natomas Unified School District response

Response says

The district disagrees that CDE cited significant disproportionality in chronic absenteeism.

Audit analysis

The response identifies the precise disputed classification, explains annual determinations and cites IDEA and 34 CFR 300.600–300.604. It names the district determination letter but does not attach it.

Response says

The district rejects the absenteeism premise but says community-feedback processes will continue.

Audit analysis

A disagreement with the finding is not a clear statutory implementation category. No inclusive planning completion date is given.

Response says

The district reports implementation through advisory meetings, newsletters, public reports and family engagement.

Audit analysis

Named communication channels directly engage public participation. Their reach and regular use are respondent assertions. This assesses the response’s engagement, not independently verified implementation.

Response says

The district partially disagrees: it accepts racial overidentification but disputes the state absenteeism classification.

Audit analysis

The two propositions are explicitly separated and the accepted and disputed portions are identified. No underlying determination letter is attached.

Response says

The district acknowledges higher suspension rates but disputes harsher punishment for the same violations.

Audit analysis

The response identifies the distinction and describes a discipline matrix and training. It supplies no matched-offense data to establish the comparative claim.

Response says

The district acknowledges disproportionate lengthy suspensions but cites graduation, CTE and IB participation.

Audit analysis

The reasons are specific, including a 96-percent graduation figure, but concern the overall Black student population rather than the affected special-education subgroup.

Response says

The district says it is implementing focus groups through its Compliance and Improvement Monitoring Plan.

Audit analysis

Focus groups and plan amendments engage the requested process, but no completion timeframe or explicit family-and-leader participation scope is supplied.

Response says

The district reports implementation through named trainings offered during 2022–2026.

Audit analysis

The list supports racial and cultural training; disability-specific coverage and participation by every employee remain incomplete, with additional courses still being explored.

Response says

The district disagrees, stating that case managers appear at every level of its discipline matrix.

Audit analysis

The response identifies the relevant matrix provisions and pre-suspension involvement, directly addressing the disputed timing. The matrix is a traceable named record but is not appended.

Response says

The district says changes are not warranted because early case-manager involvement is already implemented.

Audit analysis

The stated existing implementation and summer leadership training engage the recommendation; the underlying matrix and attendance are not independently verified.

Response says

The district disagrees and asserts that all students who require transition plans have them.

Audit analysis

The scope is clear but the response repeats a contrary conclusion without explaining the jury’s compliance data or supplying a supporting dataset.

Response says

The district will audit IEPs monthly and continue staff training.

Audit analysis

The future category and recurring action are explicit, but the November start date or an alternative implementation timeframe is absent.

Response says

The district disagrees and describes the SELPA plan as a snapshot of services at drafting.

Audit analysis

The timing explanation engages the disputed representation but does not supply the underlying plan or reconcile missing service codes.

Response says

The district reports implementation in the July 22, 2026 approved 2026–2027 plan and promises coding training.

Audit analysis

A named dated plan is supplied as the basis for the claim, but amendment of the earlier plan and explicit inclusion of every named service are not demonstrated.

Response says

The district agrees with the staffing-shortage finding and describes the wider shortage.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages the whole staffing finding. Named teacher-pipeline efforts provide context rather than proof of resolved vacancies.

Response says

The district says consideration was implemented through a 2023 pathway planning grant; enrollment projections led it not to launch the pathway.

Audit analysis

The recommendation asks for consideration, not guaranteed creation. The response describes a completed planning and feasibility decision, so it addresses that action without claiming an operating pathway.

Response says

The district agrees with the commendation and reports teacher-program completions and workforce diversity figures.

Audit analysis

The separate commendation receives explicit agreement with dated program statistics. Those statistics are attributed to the district, not independently verified.