Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 33:01 — 45.9MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful (“FAIR”) Act became law in 2012 and was enacted with the goal of California schools including a more historically accurate depiction of the contributions of LGBT Americans in the curriculum and to reduce the negative stereotypes and bullying that plague a majority of LGBT youth.  However, in light of national and local controversies regarding discussion of LGBT issues at public schools, some may be confused or unsure about how to be compliant with the FAIR Act and comprehensive sexual health education opt-out requests, and/or avoid parent complaints.  In this episode, Lozano Smith’s San Diego Managing Partner Trevin Sims and Senior Counsel Angelique Cramer will cover the basics of what the law requires and address the interplay between laws that pertain to LGBT issues at schools, as well as how to handle parent concerns regarding the curriculum.

Show Notes & References

• 2:00 – The FAIR (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive & Respectful) Act
• 2:33 – Legislative history of the FAIR Act
• 3:44 – Referenced groups in the FAIR Act
• 5:09 – Curriculum requirements
• 6:33 – Health/sex education and the California Healthy Youth Act
• 7:24 – Exemptions and opt outs
• 11:21 – Implementation and challenges for schools
• 14:31 – CDE FAQs and CDE discussion of interplay of both Acts
• 16:45 – Where disputes occur and how they are submitted
• 20:43 – Spontaneous classroom discussions and guidance for districts
• 25:04 – Takeaways

 

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: 2:26 — 4.0MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Erin Hamor, Partner and Co-chair of Lozano Smith’s Charter School Practice Group, is back with an important update on the fate of charter school renewals in the state in light of new pending legislation, discussed in our most recent episode, Charter School Renewals – They’re Back!

 

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: 26:04 — 36.4MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

In this Lozano Smith Podcast episode, host Sloan Simmons talks with Lozano Smith Partners and charter school experts Ed Sklar and Erin Hamor regarding the forthcoming return of the charter school renewal process under pre-Pandemic changes in the law resulting from AB 1505.

Show Notes & References

• 1:32 – Charter renewals and where we left off (listen to Episode 57 here)
• 2:19 – AB 1505 (2019) and The Charter Schools Act reform
• 5:32 – Removal of the Dashboard and impact on charter renewals
• 8:20 – Other factors impacting renewal
• 9:10 – Data used for renewals
• 12:36 – Examples of Verified Data
• 14:30 – Potential disputes over data
• 16:48 – Governance and fiscal issues
• 18:32 – “Cure and Correct” notices
• 19:01 – Selective enrollment issues
• 19:29 – The Charter Schools Act
• 22:16 – Notice of deficiencies
• 23:15 – Next steps for charter authorizers

 

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: 41:37 — 57.7MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

In this Lozano Smith Podcast episode, host Sloan Simmons talks with Lozano Smith special education Partner Sarah Garcia and special education attorney Kaitlyn Tucker about the nuances and options when responding to student behavior, including imposition of student discipline and other options, in the special education context.

Show Notes & References

• 1:28 – Expedited due process hearings (34 C.F.R. § 300.532.)
• 1:46 – The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
• 3:40 – Honig injunction procedure (Honig v. Doe (1988) 484 U.S. 305)
• 5:54 – Differences between expedited and normal due process hearings (34 C.F.R. § 300.507; 34 C.F.R. § 300.510; 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c); OAH: Due Process; Letter to Snyder (OSEP 2015).)
• 8:00 – Manifestation Determination (MD) (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e).)
• 12:38 – Correctly counting 10 days (partial vs. full days of suspension) (Questions & Answers: Addressing the Needs of Children with Disabilities and IDEA’s Discipline Provisions (July 2022))
• 15:29 – Patterns surrounding basis of knowledge
• 19:59 – Risks of proceeding with expulsion hearings
• 21:54 – District request for Interim Alternative Education Settings (IAES) (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(b)(2)(ii).)
• 24:38 – IAES process vs Honig injunction procedure
• 26:25 – Stay put during disciplinary challenges (34 C.F.R. § 300.518; 34 C.F.R. § 300.533; 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j).)
• 30:26 – Recent orders from OAH (OAH Case Nos. 2022080223/2022110728)
• 35:04 – Takeaways

 

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: 23:28 — 32.8MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Effective 2023, the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) has a new statutory “home” within the Government Code.  (See Gov. Code, § 7920.000 et seq.)  While the Legislature has indicated this reorganization is not intended to change the CPRA substantively, the practical effects of this reorganization remain to be seen.  In this Lozano Smith Podcast episode, host Sloan Simmons engages with Lozano Smith Partner, Manuel Martinez, and Senior Counsel, Alyse Pacheco Nichols, to discuss this statutory reorganization; guesses as to the Legislature’s rationale for the reorganization; and how this reorganization will or will not effect the way public agencies response to CPRA requests.

Show Notes & References

• 2:10 – Statute reorganization effective January 2023
• 12:04 – Status of catch-all provisions (Alphabetical List [7930.100 – 7930.215])
• 13:57 – Impact on public agencies
• 18:30 – Trends in case law and in practice
• 19:15 – Iloh v. Regents of the University of California (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 513
• 19:42 – City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608 (Lozano Smith Tip Jar – 2017)

 

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: 27:29 — 38.3MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

This episode provides school administrators with the latest legislative changes and developments regarding student matters with Lozano Smith and Student Practice Group leaders Ruth Mendyk and Joshua Whiteside, along with Fresno attorney Nisha Dale.

Show Notes & References

• 1:23 – Governor’s Executive Order: End of State of Emergency (February 28, 2023)
• 2:29 –Student threats and firearms (SB 906) (Client News Brief 41 – August 2022)
• 7:09 – Excused absence for civic or political event (SB 955) (Education Code section 48205)
• 9:50 – Homeless youth (Client News Brief 4 – January 2023)
• 10:21 – McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
• 11:10 – New requirements for districts regarding homeless students (AB 2375)
• 11:41 – CDE Model Housing Questionnaire
• 12:07 – Updates to homeless youth policies (AB 408)
• 15:00 – COVID-19 testing plan (SB 1479)
• 16:40 – MOUs with non-profits for eye exams (AB 2329)
• 19:05 – Including students on LCAP Parent Advisory Committees (SB 997) (Client News Brief 9 – February 2023)
• 21:16 – Graduation dress code and the First Amendment (Waln v. Dysart School District (9^th Cir. 2022) 54 F.4th 1152) (Client News Brief 6 – January 2023)

 

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: 32:15 — 44.9MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

The United States Supreme Court’s June 2022 Opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District marked a potential sea change for the considerations school districts must account for in relation to employee private religious expression in the school context, whether as a matter of constitutional free speech rights vs. regulation of employee speech, free exercise of religion, or the Establishment Clause.  With the benefit of several months and almost half a school year to consider the impacts and ramifications of Kennedy, host Sloan Simmons talks with Michelle Cannon and Kendra Tovey on their understanding of Kennedy’s immediate and anticipated potential impacts, as well as options and challenges for school districts looking ahead.

Show Notes & References

• 2:06 – Kennedy v. Bremerton School District case background (Client News Brief 31 – July 2022)
• 5:09 – Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602
• 8:05 – Facts focused on by Supreme Court in the majority opinion
• 10:42 – Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) 547 U.S. 410
• 11:16 – Johnson v. Poway Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2011) 658 F.3d 954
• 13:30 – Three clauses of the First Amendment – U.S. Const., amend. I  

 

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: 23:21 — 32.6MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

As discussed in Episode 56, there were three pending charter school petition appeals to the State Board of Education (SBE) following denial by the respective LEAs. These were the first three charter petition appeals subject to the new appeal processes since Assembly Bill 1505 became effective in 2020.  In this Lozano Smith Podcast episode, host Sloan Simmons engages with Megan Macy and Courtney de Groof to follow up and discuss the outcomes of these petition appeals and what to anticipate going forward.

Show Notes & References

• 1:51 – AB 1505 and appeals to the State Board of Education (SBE)
• 3:39 – Standards of review
• 4:50 – Recent local educational agency (LEA) appeals
• 7:23 – Advisory Committee on Charter Schools (ACCS)
• 9:08 – Summary denial process
• 9:59 – Fiscal impact basis of denial (Education code section 47605 (c) (8))
• 11:41 – Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT)
• 13:00 – Procedural issues related to public hearings
• 14:31 – Community interest standard of denial (Education code section 47605 (c) (7))
• 16:39 – Determining charter authorizers
• 19:01 – Appeals going forward

 

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: 22:58 — 32.1MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Effective 2019, significant legal changes were enacted regarding charter schools in California.  The anticipated effects and implementation of those changes, however, were stunted by the COVID-19 outbreak.  In this Lozano Smith Podcast episode, host Sloan Simmons engages with Lozano Smith Charter Practice Group Co-Leaders, Ed Sklar and Erin Hamor, to discuss the current state of affairs for charter schools and their authorizers, hot topics and trends in the charter school field, and what to anticipate going forward as California’s LEAs return to normal operation.

Show Notes & References

• 1:14 – A look back at 2019
• 1:26 – Assembly Bill (AB) 1505 (Client News Brief 49 – October 2019)
• 3:52 – Current state (Client News Brief 18 – August 2021)
• 4:34 – Status of proposed regulations post AB 1505
• 6:29 – Restart of charter renewal process
• 9:12 – Renewal petitions and issue fixing
• 10:29 – AB 1505 and the State Board of Education (SBE)
• 10:45 – Appeals to charter petition denials
• 11:57 – “Abuse of discretion” standard of review
• 12:18 – Takeaways from appeals
• 17:59 – Pending legislation

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

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: 21:55 — 30.7MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

In the wake of COVID-19, many families have experienced or explored new ways for their children to receive education.  Lozano Smith attorneys Lauri Arrowsmith and Kaitlyn Tucker will examine the recent trend of more parents seeking alternative placements for their children with disabilities and how educational agencies should handle such requests, including those seeking placement at a private or home school.  This episode will also address recent case law in the past year which provides meaningful directives on this issue.

Show Notes & References

• 1:43 – Trends in placement requests
• 3:28 – Obtaining private placement
• 4:42 – 10-day unilateral placement notice
• 5:49 – Changes to plans and individual services plans (ISPs)
• 6:36 – Capistrano v. S.W. 80 IDELR 31 (9^th Cir. 2021)
• 11:02 – Homeschooling
• 12:48 – Independent study and students with disabilities
• 13:12 – E. E. v. California (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2022) Slip Copy. 2022 WL 597035
• 14:38 – Independent study vs. home hospital
• 16:09 – Potential issues
• 18:30 – Best practices and takeaways

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

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