CetusEd
A school parking lot at dusk under a wet gray sky, empty marked bays and a low building behind.

The clock starts itself, and the rule names who to tell.

Consent comes back, the evaluation window opens, and the next step is already on somebody’s list with the right date on it. The arithmetic is done for you. The decision is not.

Three levels of government, and their rules do not agree

A deadline is only as firm as whoever set it. Of the twenty-one clocks the product counts, 1 comes from federal law. 15 come from Washington rule — the state moves those, and when it does the number changes here rather than in a spreadsheet somebody maintains. The remaining 5 come from nowhere: no day count for them exists in law, so whatever number sits there is a choice your district made.

Every clock, its trigger and its authority

One student, every clock on the same line

Consent in, report to the parent 35 school days later, the eligibility meeting 40. School days are counted against the calendar the district loads, so a February break on it moves the date. This is Chapter 1 of the student’s evaluation record, which opens collapsed; the dates in this reconstruction are illustrative.

STUDENT RECORD · CHAPTER 1

Student timelineInitial evaluation · what the clocks are doing
Consent date
2026-06-12
Report deadline (35 sd)
2026-08-05
4 school days left
Eligibility deadline (40 sd)
2026-08-12
9 school days left
Eligibility meeting
2026-08-12
Deadlines count SCHOOL days, against the calendar your district loads — weekends and the non-school days on it are skipped.
The 35- and 40-school-day evaluation clocks, as the product counts them. The dates here are illustrative; in the product they are computed from the consent date against the calendar the district loads. Both clocks are set by ESHB 2557, along with the 5-school-day minimum for a parent to review the report before the meeting is held.

reconstruction Rebuilt from the real screen for this page. The labels, thresholds and rules are the product’s own; the dates are illustrative.

What the clock does once it starts

Consent comes back and somebody records it on the case.
The evaluation clock starts, and the next step appears in the Action Center of whoever owns it.
The rule is written in school days.
The count skips your winter break and your snow days, because it is running on your district’s calendar.
The window starts to close.
The case rises on the caseload view days ahead of the date, while there is still room to do the work.

A field that stores a date cannot do any of that. The hard part was always knowing what the date obliges, and whose desk it lands on.

35 school days to get the report to the parent what starts it
  • The date WRITTEN CONSENT for the evaluation is received.
  • ESHB 2557, 2026 c 34 §2 (effective 2026-06-11)
40 school days to hold the eligibility meeting what starts it
  • The date WRITTEN CONSENT for the evaluation is received.
  • ESHB 2557, 2026 c 34 §2 (effective 2026-06-11)
30 calendar days to hold the first IEP meeting what starts it
  • The day AFTER the eligibility determination meeting.
  • WAC 392-172A-03105(2)(a) — initial IEP

All 21 dates we track

Your own clocks get the same machinery

When services have to start after a parent signs. When a Section 504 evaluation decision is due. Neither has a day count anywhere in statute or rule, so your district sets them — and they then run exactly like the statutory ones. Same activation, same tasks, same alerting, and the same ledger of what was done under which claimed session. The only difference a reader sees is the label: the screen says district policy and names your rule, so nobody in a hearing mistakes your operational target for a legal duty.