Response says
The district disagrees and asserts that all students who require transition plans have them.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F6
Natomas case managers do not consistently write transition plans as required by federal law, which deprives special education students of opportunities to prepare for life after high school
What should residents consider about Finding F6: Natomas case managers do not consistently write transition plans as required by federal law, which deprives special education students of opportunities to prepare for life after high school, and the County’s response?
Natomas Unified School District Board of EducationAudit assessment: Partially addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
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.
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
2/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 2/2
- Reason specificity
- 0/2
- Support traceability
- 0/2
The scope is clear but the response repeats a contrary conclusion without explaining the jury’s compliance data or supplying a supporting dataset.
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...