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.

Graduation season is fast approaching and now is the time for selecting speakers, auditioning singers and all the other details that go into planning a successful event.  On this Lozano Smith podcast, host Sloan Simmons and his guests Partners and Lozano Smith Student Practice Group Leaders, Ruth Mendyk and Kyle Raney, walk through parameters and considerations in preparing for the ceremony itself, including speeches, music, adornments and more.  The group also discusses the basics that being included in the ceremony is not a guarantee, but should be considered a privilege for students to participate.

Show Notes & References

• 1:14 – Participating in graduation: a privilege, not a right (Swany v. San Ramon Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (N.D. Cal. 1989) 720 F.Supp. 764)
• 4:00  – Best practices for districts to communicate graduation policies and parameters
• 7:27 – Non-public forums of graduation ceremonies
• 10:01 – Due process regarding student participation (Castro v. Clovis Unified School District (U.S.D.C. E.D. Cal. 2022) Case No. 1:19-cv-00821-DAD-SKO) (Client News Brief 29 – June 2022)
• 12:31 – Students on the mic (Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District (2003) 320 F.3d 979)
• 16:42 – Invocations and religious speech (Cole v. Oroville Union High School District (9th Cir. 2000) 228 F.3d 1092)
• 19:19 – Prayer at graduation (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) 142 S.Ct. 2407) (Client News Brief 31 – July 2022)
• 23:34 – Alternative bases for regulating expression (Corder v. Lewis Palmer School District No. 38 (U.S.D.C. D. Col. 2009) Case No. 08-1293 and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) 484 U.S. 260) (Education Code section 48907)
• 26:55 – Songs and instrumental music  (Nurre v. Whitehead (9th Cir. 2009) 580 F.3d 1087)
• 30:13 – Student fees and free school guarantee – caps and gowns and senior activities
• 32:02 – Adornment of cap and gown (Education Code section 35183.1)

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.

This episode explores the evolving landscape of Title IX through the lens of where we are and where we’re headed. From the impact of the 2020 regulations and the recent vacating of the 2024 regulations, to current executive orders, investigations, and state laws shaping implementation today, our team looks ahead at what future federal guidance may hold. Lozano Smith Title IX gurus Monica Batanero, Sarah Fama, and Emma Sol join host Sloan Simmons for this timely discussion to help school leaders navigate the rapid legal changes.

Show Notes & References

• 2:14 – The current buzz around Title IX
• 3:35  – 2024 Title IX Regulations vacated by January 9, 2025 Kentucky court case (Tennessee v. Cardona, 2:24-cv-00072)
• 5:15 – Ensuring compliance with the 2020 Regulations
• 7:51 – Other policies impacted by removal of the 2024 Regulations
• 8:45 – Potential for drafting future Title IX Regulations to have less back and forth change between administrations
• 12:21 – Executive orders impacting Title IX (See (1) Client News Brief 7; (2) Client News Brief 11; (3) Client News Brief 12)
• 12:56 – January 20, 2025 Executive Order
• 13:29 – Podcast Episode 78 At Last! The New Title IX Regulations Are Here – What You Need to Know
• 16:14 – California Education Code section 221.5 (f)
• 17:23 – Maine Department of Education letter
• 22:40 – Roe v. Critchfield (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025), Case No. 23-2807, __ F.4th __ (Client News Brief 14 – April 2025)
• 27:48 – Closing thoughts
• 29:14 – Lozano Smith’s Federal Policy and Guidance Developments resource page

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 the final episode of our three-part podcast series, host Sloan Simmons joins Lozano Smith Facilities and Business Partners Megan Macy and Anne Collins, and special guest Sue Bell, Chief Facilities Officer for the Elk Grove Unified School District, to tackle all things implementation.  The experts discuss turning plans into action, from developing teams and agreements to delivery methods and launch.

Show Notes & References

• 2:14 – How to select a delivery method (Resource: Construction Delivery Methods)
• 4:53 – Lease-Leaseback method (Listen to: Episode 71 Proper Procurement & Bidding)
• 8:10 – Ensuring Board policies and resolutions are up to date
• 8:48 – Timing
• 10:16 – Project management
• 11:57 – Recommendations regarding Construction Managers
• 12:44 – Big picture takeaways

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.