Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 40:15 — 56.1MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith attorneys Sarah Garcia and Karina Demirchyan to discuss why student attendance has become a critical issue for local educational agencies and how attendance concerns can evolve into legal and special education obligations. Drawing on recent legislative updates and real-world experience, the conversation highlights funding considerations, attendance terminology, notification requirements, and when chronic absenteeism may trigger child find duties and further intervention.

Show Notes & References

• 1:21 – Why attendance is a critical issue for Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)
• 1:57 – School funding and average daily membership (Senate Bill (SB) 98)
• 2:05 – Optional attendance recovery program (SB 153)
• 2:19 – New excused absences (SB 1138) (See Client News Brief 45 – October 2024)
• 2:51 – Truancy (AB 461) (See Client News Brief 58 – December 2025)
• 3:09 – Lozano Smith Podcast Episode 99: New Laws Impacting Students Heading into 2026
• 3:49 – Heightened attention on attendance from California Department of Education (CDE) and supporting data
• 6:18 – Correlation between attendance and discipline
• 7:51 – Legal requirements for LEAs regarding attendance
• 9:16 – Terminology (chronic absenteeism, truancy, habitual truancy, and chronic truancy)
• 14:51 – Notification requirements for truancy letters (SB 691) (See Client News Brief 45 – October 2024)
• 16:56 – When attendance issues become a special education issue
• 21:44 – Child find and evaluating absent students for special education
• 22:34 – Factors that LEAs should be looking for with attendance when considering referring a student for assessment
• 25:18 – School Attendance Review Board (SARB)
• 27:11 – Effective attendance and behavior interventions
• 28:44 – Parent training
• 30:56 – Cautionary tales and anecdotes from the field

 

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 26:29 — 37.2MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

In this episode—the 100th Lozano Smith Podcast episode—host Sloan Simmons joins Partners Alyse Pacheco Nichols and Crystal Pizano to discuss strategic planning and best practices for responding to requests under the California Public Records Act. Alyse and Crystal’s respective expertise in Governance and Municipal practice areas lends a practical discussion useful for local educational agencies and municipalities faced with the ever-increasing number and complexity of public record requests.

Show Notes & References

• 2:02 – Sequence of events when Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) receive requests for information
• 5:12 – Unclear requests and seeking clarification
• 6:39 – The value of understanding who a requester is and the motivations behind any requests
• 10:21 – Contextual clues to help LEAs know what types of records to identify for disclosure
• 12:28 – Requests that may relate to anticipated litigation or politically sensitive subjects
• 15:48 – Large-scale email PRA requests and how to go about gathering documents
• 19:04 – Best practices for large requests
• 22:48 – Partnering with legal counsel

 

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 40:46 — 56.8MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons joins Student Practice Group Co-Chair Ruth Mendyk and student practitioner Rebal Halabi-Boutros for the year’s annual student legislation round-up.  Ruth and Rebal discuss the most significant bills passed by the close of this year’s legislative session and their impacts going into 2026.

Show Notes & References

• 1:34 – New laws related to immigration enforcement (Assembly Bill (AB) 49) (See Client News Brief 41 – October 2025)
• 3:54 – Judicial vs. administrative warrants (See Attorney General Guidance)
• 4:43 – Immigration enforcement and the impact on average daily attendance (ADA) (AB 1348)
• 5:40 – Comprehensive school safety plans (Senate Bill (SB) 98) (See Client News Brief 41 – October 2025)
• 7:08 – Family Preparedness Act (AB 495) (See Client News Brief 46 – November 2025)
• 10:56 – Identification cards (AB 727) (See Client New Brief 54 – November 2025)
• 12:21 – Homeless students and health screenings (AB 677) (See Client News Brief 54 – November 2025)
• 13:22 – Smartphone use and the emergency exception (AB 962) (See Client News Brief 53 – November 2025)
• 17:50 – Antisemitism and discrimination (AB 715 and SB 48) (See Client News Brief 43 – October 2025)
• 20:54 – Prichett et al. v. Newsom et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:25-cv-09443-NW
• 23:00 – Governor Newsom’s statement on AB 715 and SB 48 (October 7, 2025)
• 23:16 – Graduation ceremonies and student adornment of cap and gown (AB 1369) (See Client News Brief 44 – October 2025)
• 28:11 – Cyberbullying (AB 772) (See Client News Brief 53 – November 2025)
• 33:43 – Readmission following expulsion (AB 1230) (See Client News Brief 58 – December 2025)
• 35:47 – Truancy (AB 461) (See Client News Brief 58 – December 2025)
• 38:24 – Diwali added to list of state holidays (AB 268) (See Client News Brief 58 – December 2025)

Update:  On December 17, 2025, a U.S. District Court judge in San Jose heard oral arguments on the motion for preliminary injunction to block AB 715 filed by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and a group of California teachers and students.  On December 31, 2025, the court issued a ruling denying the motion for preliminary injunction.  The court also scheduled a status conference for January 27, 2026, to determine next steps for how the lawsuit should proceed.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:00:14 — 83.5MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons joins Title IX experts Sarah Fama and Sinead McDonough for a comprehensive discussion regarding the status of the law as it pertains to gender identity, students, and schools.  Topics covered include the current status of California and federal law and policy on point, as well as the wide-ranging scope of pending litigation poised to impact this area of school law.

Show Notes & References

• 1:54 – Foundational cases impacting Title IX policy (Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731) (Client News Brief 50 – June 2020)
• 2:55 – Grabowski v. Arizona Board of Regents (9th Cir. 2023) 69 F.4th 1110
• 5:51 – Parents for Privacy vs. Barr (9th Cir. 2020) 949 F.3d 1210 (Client News Brief 40 – May 2020)
• 10:48 – Roe vs. Critchfield (9th Cir. 2025) 137 F.4th 912 (Client News Brief 14 – April 2025)
• 12:49 – Jones, et al. v. Critchfield, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-5413
• 13:44 – Regino vs. Blake (formerly Staley) (9th Cir. 2025) (Client News Brief 17 – April 2025)
• 14:57 – Assembly Bill (AB) 1266
• 20:00 – United States v. Skrmetti (2025) 605 U.S. 495
• 22:24 – The law in California
• 23:25 – CIF (California Interscholastic Federation) Rule 300D and Guidelines for Gender Identity Participation
• 24:36 – Interactions with federal law
• 25:56 – Executive Order (EO) 14168 (Client News Brief 12 – February 2025)
• 27:01 – Tennessee v. Cardona decision
• 28:29 – Dear Colleague letter – February 4, 2025
• 30:32 – Federal government’s approach and reaction to CIF and AB 1266 (USDOE Press Releases: February 12, 2025; March 27, 2025; June 25, 2025)
• 34:00 – Related Supreme Court cases (Little v. Hecox, Case No. No. 24-38; West Virginia v. B.P.J., Case No. 24-43)
• 35:09 – T.S. et al. v. Riverside Unified School District et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Case No. 5:24-cv-02480-SSS-SP, and order on motion to dismiss, (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2025) 2025 WL 2884416
• 36:25 – Protections for student privacy and their interactions with parental rights
• 39:22 – Mirabelli vs. Olson et al.¸U.S.D.C., Southern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET
• 40:00 – The SAFETY Act (AB 1955)
• 44:13 – The dynamic between the federal government and California post-AB 1955 enactment (United States of America v. California Interscholastic Federation et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 8:25-cv-01485-CV-JDE)
• 50:26 – Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, Case No. 25-77
• 52:19 – Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Listen to Episode 97 Mahmoud v. Taylor) (Client News Brief 28 – July 2025)
• 53:31 – Access to facilities
• 55:15 – Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board (4th Cir. 2020) 972 F.3d 586
• 56:06 – Million Dollar Question: Does Title IX protect individuals based on gender identity or not?

 

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast