Let’s Talk - Lozano Smith Podcast

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.