(a)An individualized education program required as a result of an assessment of a pupil shall be developed within a total time not to exceed 60 days, not counting days between the pupil’s regular school sessions, terms, or days of school vacation in excess of five schooldays, from the date of receipt of the parent’s written consent for assessment, unless the parent agrees, in writing, to an extension. However, an individualized education program required as a result of an assessment of a pupil shall be developed within 30 days after the commencement of the subsequent regular school year as determined by each local educational agency’s school calendar for each pupil for whom a referral has been made 30 days or less prior to the end of the regular school year. In the case of pupil school vacations, the 60-day time shall recommence on the date that pupil schooldays reconvene. A meeting to develop an initial individualized education program for the pupil shall be conducted within 30 days of a determination that the pupil needs special education and related services pursuant to Section 300.323(c)(1) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b)Pursuant to Section 300.323(c)(2) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as soon as possible following development of the individualized education program, special education and related services shall be made available to the individual with exceptional needs in accordance with the individual’s individualized education program.
(c)Each local educational agency shall have an individualized education program in effect for each individual with exceptional needs within its jurisdiction at the beginning of each school year in accordance with subdivision (a) and pursuant to Section 300.323(a) and (b) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Notes of Decisions
J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified School District (2010)
ca9
““The requirement of a formal, written offer creates a clear record that will do much to eliminate troublesome factual disputes many years later about when placements were offered, what placements were offered, and what additional educational assistance was offered to supplement…”
B.H. v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (2019)
calctapp5d
“" ( Ed. Code, § 56344, subd. (b).) The responsibility to avoid delay in implementing an IEP expressly extends to situations in which the source for the provision or payment of special education for an eligible child has yet to be determined.”
Vasheresse v. Laguna Salada Union School District (2001)
cand · cites it 2×
“California Education Code section 56344 requires that, after an assessment for special education, an IEP program must be developed within fifty days, but that time had not begun to run.”
S.H. v. Mount Diablo Unified School District (2017)
cand
“- ■ Cal. Educ. Code § 56344 (a). Notwithstanding these requirements, the IDEA allows school districts to perform an “interim IEP” when a student-transfers mid-year from one school district to another and has an IEP in effect at the time of the transfer.”
B.H. v. Manhattan Beach School Dist. (2019)
calctapp
“” (Ed. Code, § 56344, subd. (b).) The responsibility to avoid delay in implementing an IEP expressly extends to situations in which the source for the provision or payment of special education for an eligible child has yet to be determined.”
I.R. v. Lausd (2015)
ca9
“Cal. Educ. Code § 56344 (b) (emphasis added).”
— Cal. Education Code § 56344(b) — 2 cases
J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified School District (2010)
ca9
““The requirement of a formal, written offer creates a clear record that will do much to eliminate troublesome factual disputes many years later about when placements were offered, what placements were offered, and what additional educational assistance was offered to supplement…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.