Under the Education Code, the public school district in which the parents of a disabled student reside is responsible for preparing an “individualized education plan” for the student and for paying the costs of implementing that plan. As part of such a plan for their adopted disabled child, the plaintiff parents arranged for the placement of the child in a residential facility located in another county, and their school district agreed to the placement. However, the district later withdrew its approval upon discovering that plaintiffs received financial assistance for the placement through an adoptive assistance program administered by the department of children and family services (DCFS) in plaintiffs’ county of residence. Primary issue was whether DCFS was a “public agency, other than an educational agency” under Ed. Code, § 56155, and whether DCFS had “placed” the child in the out-of-county facility, such that Ed. Code, § 56156.4, subd. (a), relieved the school district of responsibility for the costs of the child’s education.
A public school district challenged the ruling of an arbitrator in a labor dispute, contending that the award violated certain provisions of the Education Code and the labor agreement. Primary issue involved whether the ruling compelled the district to violate Ed. Code, §§ 44663 and 44664, which specified procedures for the evaluation of tenured teachers.
Hon. Thomas L. Willhite, Jr. (Ret.)
915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90017