Advertise on podcast: Let’s Talk - Lozano Smith Podcast

In this episode, host Michelle Cannon engages with Lozano Smith Litigation Practice Group Co-Chair Sloan Simmons and Student Practice Group Co-Chair Kyle Raney to discuss the current state of the law in California under Mirabelli v. Bonta and Mahmoud v. Taylor.  The discussion reviews developments and what is anticipated in the courts through the conclusion of 2026 in relation to these cases and parallel litigation, and covers best practices and policy options for school officials due to the current status of the law. Show Notes & References 1:34 – Case background: Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Client News Brief 28 – July 2025) 10:24 – Advice for local education agencies (LEAs) on how to respond to overly broad opt-out requests 11:18 – Status of Mozert and Peloza cases (Mozert v. Hawkins County Bd. of Ed. (6th Cir. 1987) 827 F.2d 1058; Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 1994) 37 F.3d 517) 12:25 – California Department of Education (CDE) guidance on Mahmoud 12:38 – Case background: Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) 607 U.S. 492 (Client New Brief 9 – March 2026) 16:28 – Regino vs. Blake (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2026) 2026 WL 121667 (now pending on appeal before Ninth Circuit) 20:36 – Litigation before Ninth Circuit on Assembly Bill (AB) 1955; Chino Valley Unified School District, et al. v. Newsom, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-3686; City of Huntington Beach et al. v. State of California, Court of Appeals Case No. 26-25 21:44 – Background on AB 1955 (Client New Brief 8 – March 2026) 30:52 – Takeaways for LEAs on pending litigation cases 32:26 – Recommendations for updating LEA policies and practices 34:51 – More takeaways for LEAs and staff   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Public employees and officials have the right to participate in political activity, but important restrictions apply when personal advocacy intersects with public employment and agency resources. In this episode, host Michelle Cannon connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Scott Cross and Gail Zurek to discuss how public employees and officials can distinguish between permissible private political activity and conduct performed in an official capacity. The conversation explores campaign activity during work and personal time, the use of agency facilities and resources, political forums and campaign materials, and the rules governing uniforms, agency logos, and equipment. The discussion also examines how public agencies may provide neutral information about ballot measures without engaging in advocacy, along with restrictions involving campaign solicitations, political benefits, and the Levine Act. Show Notes & References 1:23 – Public employees and the right to participate in political activity 2:27 – Differentiating between personal (private) activities vs. official (public) activities 4:01 – Prohibited use of agency resources for campaign purposes (Government Code section 8314) 4:23 – Examples of agency resources 6:22 – The importance of where the political activity is taking place (public forums versus limited-public forums) 10:08 – Considerations around public agencies hosting political forums and remaining viewpoint neutral 12:00 – Distributing campaign materials on sidewalks in front of school grounds 14:59 – Prohibition on participation in campaign event while wearing their agency uniform (Government Code section 3206) 15:48 – Rules for teachers displaying campaign materials in the classroom 19:44 – Ballot measures on local agency issues 20:45 – Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 and Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1 21:51 – Solicitation of campaign contributions (Government Code section 3205) 23:11 – Offering benefits in exchange for political support (Government Code section 3204) 24:07 – The Levine Act (Government Code section 84308)   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

California’s SB 848 introduces significant new requirements for educational agencies related to ensuring the safety of students. In this episode, host Michelle Cannon connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Carolyn Gemma and Brianna Ramos to discuss the background behind these new requirements and what educational agencies need to know as implementation continues. The conversation explores key changes, including new legal obligations regarding employment screening, comprehensive safety plans, mandated reports, and employee trainings. The discussion provides practical insights to help educational agencies understand the law’s various effective dates and take steps to maintain compliance moving forward. Show Notes & References 1:22 – Background information on Senate Bill (SB) 848 1:45 – Multiple effective dates that educational agencies should know about 4:05 – Employment screening process since January 1, 2026 4:33 – Assembly Bill (AB) 2534 and screening process for certificated job applicants 6:35 – Egregious misconduct under the law 8:16 – Repercussions for hiring educational agencies who do not comply with the required screening process 9:02 – What if a former educational agency does not respond to a hiring agency’s inquiry? 10:34 – Disclosure requirements for former employer agencies regarding past employee egregious misconduct 13:07 – California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) statewide database 14:52 – Requirements related to professional boundaries 16:24 – Requirement regarding comprehensive school safety plans 18:28 – Who is considered a mandated reporter under SB 848 19:15 – Volunteers under Penal Code definition 19:45 – Contractors 20:26 – New training requirements for mandated reporters 23:34 – CDE/California Department of Social Services training model for compliance with SB 848 24:02 – Next steps for educational agencies going forward to keep up to date with compliance   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

California’s AB 126 introduces significant changes to charter school oversight and authorizer responsibilities. In this episode, host Sloan Simmons connects with Lozano Smith’s Charter Practice Group Co-Chairs, Ed Sklar and Erin Hamor, to discuss the background behind these reforms and what they mean for charter schools and authorizers. The conversation explores key changes, including expanded oversight requirements, enhanced fiscal monitoring obligations, fraud reporting responsibilities, and further clarifications to California’s Charter Schools Act. The discussion provides practical insights to help authorizers prepare through policy updates, strengthened protocols, and improved documentation practices. Show Notes & References 1:22 – Background on Assembly Bill (AB) 126 and the implementation of increased oversight for charter schools 1:55 – A3 Charter Schools 5:52 – Moratorium on online non-classroom-based charter schools 7:33 – Oversight requirements now in place for charter authorizers 11:40 – Financial impact on school districts overseeing charter schools 13:12 – Looking ahead to July 1, 2027 17:08 – Auditing obligations for authorizers 18:14 – Other significant trailer bill provisions 19:18 – The erosion of the “mega waiver” 20:17 – Looking ahead to practical concerns and impacts on authorizers   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith’s Title IX Practice Group Co-Chairs, Sarah Fama and Monica Batanero, to discuss the Supreme Court’s opinion on two cases addressing transgender participation in girls’ school athletics:  West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.  The discussion covers the Court’s holdings, legal reasoning, and implications for schools navigating student participation, safety, and competitive fairness. The episode also explores the impact on California schools, including related Title IX issues, pending litigation, and challenges to California’s existing legal framework. Show Notes & References 1:28 – Supreme Court rulings in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (2026) 609 U.S.  2:25 – Background on B.P.J. and Hecox cases 5:32 – What the Supreme Court decided 6:50 – Reasoning and analysis of the Court 8:00 – Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority: “The term ‘sex’ in the 1972 Title IX statute, the 1974 Javits Amendment, and the 1975 Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.” 9:17 – Safety and competitive fairness 11:56 – Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020) 590 U.S. 644 – (Client News Brief 86 – December 2020) 15:12 – Biological females who identify as male in male sports 17:31 – Concurrences and dissents of justices 19:16 – What happens now?  The state of the law in California 20:49 – Pending litigation in lower courts 21:28 – United States v. California Interscholastic Federation and California Department of Education, July 9, 2025 – (Client News Brief 31 – July 2025) 21:53 – United States v. Maine Department of Education (No. 1:25-cv-00173) 22:33 – Viability of challenges to U.S.A. v. CIF/CDE; AB 1266 and CIF Bylaws For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

The decision of who conducts an investigation carries important legal implications and shapes how the process unfolds. In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith attorneys Trevin Sims and Kara Walton to explore how public agencies approach selecting internal, outside, and attorney investigators and how those choices can affect confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. The discussion covers disclosure decisions around how investigative findings are shared or released, and how those choices can affect whether information remains protected or subject to waiver. Join us as we examine practical considerations for managing investigations while balancing transparency, privilege, and related legal obligations. Show Notes & References 1:39 – Selecting an investigator 3:55 – The process of retaining an attorney investigator 6:56 – Outside investigators and attorney-client privilege 8:05 – Who holds attorney-client privilege 10:05 – The pros and cons of intentional, partial waivers of attorney-client privilege and inadvertent disclosures which risk waiver of the privilege 13:28 – “Clawing back” disclosures (Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 63 Cal.4th 1 and Newark Unified School District v. Superior Court (Brazil) (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 33) 14:15 – Releasing a Summary of Findings verses full disclosure of investigation report 17:06 – Complaints and litigation possibilities post-disclosures 17:33 – Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) and appeals to the California Department of Education (CDE) 18:10 – CDE requests for full disclosure of investigation reports 20:30 – Discrimination and harassment investigations (BP/AR 4030s) and appeals to California’s Civil Rights Division (CRD) 21:03 – Litigation and discovery requests for attorney-client privileged reports 23:26 – Investigations into employee misconduct and union requests for information (RFI) 26:23 – Requests for reports under the California Public Records Act (CPRA)   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Who has the authority to make educational decisions for a student? In this episode, host Michelle Cannon is joined by Lozano Smith attorneys Amanda Cordova and Anna Wood to discuss the legal framework surrounding educational rights, including special education considerations. The conversation explores custody arrangements, caregiver authority, AB 495, and when students hold their own educational rights. Join us as we explore practical guidance for navigating custody orders and other common educational rights issues faced by school districts. Show Notes & References 2:30 – Overview of educational rights 4:05 – Educational rights unique to parents of students who qualify for special education 5:45 – Parents and others who qualify as educational rights holders 7:23 – Custody arrangements for divorced, separated or unmarried parents 9:53 – Disagreements between parents with joint legal custody and how school districts should respond 11:32 – The importance of asking for custody orders 12:03 – Rights of parents who do not hold custodial rights 13:25 – What school administrators should be looking for when they receive a custody order 16:30 – Stepparents and caregivers, and assigning educational rights 18:23 – Assembly Bill (AB) 495 and caregiver’s affidavit (Client News Brief 46 – November 2025) 19:12 – Adult students holding their own educational rights   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

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   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

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   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

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   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

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   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons joins Partners Chelsea Olson-Murphy and Kyle A. Raney for a practical discussion of the holding, impact, and resulting best practices following the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor regarding the ability of parents to opt their children out of certain curriculum based upon sincerely held religious beliefs. Show Notes & References 1:50 – Opt-out statutes in other states and how California can prepare for these changes 3:08 – Case background: Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Client News Brief – July 2025) 9:31 – Wisconsin vs. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205 9:59 – Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (2022) 597 U.S. 507  (Client News Brief – August 2023) 11:11 – What the Supreme Court held in Mahmoud 15:56 – Why the Mahmoud decision matters for Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) 20:20 – Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1988) 485 U.S. 660 21:56 – Practical considerations 27:42 – Interactions with California law 27:51 – The FAIR Act (Client News Brief – October 2025) 28:38 – Best practices and recommendations for LEAs 36:16 – Template opt-out forms and three prongs of information to gather 41:16 – Takeaways and final thoughts   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons joins Public Finance Chair Daniel Maruccia and Municipal and Governance Co-Chair Mary Lerner to discuss opinions of counsel and their important role relating to bond issuances and related transactions.  Dan and Mary discuss the legal parameters applicable to opinions of counsel as well as practical impacts and challenges that can arise in this area of the law. Show Notes & References 1:26 – What are Opinions of Counsel 2:26 – Who asks for an Opinion of Counsel and why 10:08 – Information needed prior to signing an Opinion 12:09 – The seriousness of signing Opinions 15:01 – Unqualified v. Qualified Opinions 16:19 – Due diligence analysis 23:48 – Consequences to being wrong 25:39 – Timelines and missing deadlines 32:05 – Best practices   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

When it comes to hiring certificated staff, the process is now more complex and challenging. In this episode, host Aly Bivins connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Dulcinea Grantham and Gail Zurek to unpack the key provisions and implications of Assembly Bill (AB) 2534, focusing on legal obligations for Local Education Agencies related to certificated employees and egregious misconduct. Packed with FAQs, explanations of key obligations, and steps for practical compliance, this episode is essential listening for HR teams, administrators, and anyone involved in the certificated hiring process. Show Notes & References 1:24 – Assembly Bill (AB) 2534 and impact on certificated employees (Education Code section 44939.5) (Client News Brief 47 – November 2024) 3:02 – Who is affected by AB 2534 (employees and Local Education Agencies (LEAs)) 4:59 – The definition of “egregious misconduct” 6:52 – New obligations under AB 2534 7:47 – Obligations for LEAs responding to requests 12:49 – Issues regarding non-responsive LEAs 13:30 – Timelines for responses from LEAs 15:32 – Substitute teachers 16:25 – Steps for a hiring LEA that receives a report of egregious misconduct 18:36 – Disclosing reports to applicants or former employees 20:17 – Caution regarding what information LEAs provide to CTC (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing) 24:44 – What to do about information inadvertently not reported to CTC 23:34 – Common questions LEAs are facing 27:45 – Quick tips for LEAs   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Extended School Year (ESY) services can raise nuanced questions for IEP teams and special education professionals. On this episode of the Lozano Smith Podcast, host Aly R. Bivins talks with Roxana E. Khan and Erin Frazor about how ESY differs from summer school, the legal requirements under the IDEA, and how to make sound, individualized decisions. They round out the conversation by highlighting common pitfalls and offering practical tips to ensure compliance, including the importance of clear documentation. Show Notes & References 2:10 – ESY (Extended School Year services) vs. Summer School 2:52  – FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) and ESY 3:40 – Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (Client News Brief 12 – March 2017) 5:54 – Common ESY issues and questions 8:18 – How to determine eligibility for ESY 8:45 – Regression/Recoupment Analysis applied in California 10:14 – Three other standards determined by the courts 14:08 – What to provide during ESY 21:21 – When to make ESY determination 25:10 – Determining ESY eligibility for incoming students with less available information 28:01 – Litigation regarding ESY 34:17 – Does ESY only apply during the summer? 37:14 – Does the IDEA speak to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in relation to ESY? 38:45 – M.C. by & through S.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2023) Case No. 2:20-CV-09127-CBM-E, 2023 WL 11066079 40:07 – Continuum of ESY placement options   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.