Let’s Talk - Lozano Smith Podcast

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.