By Peter Schaffert, Associate
and Mary Beth De Goede, Partner
Fresno Office
In the wake of the sexual abuse scandal that rocked Los Angeles Unified School District in February of 2012, legislators introduced several bills to streamline the dismissal and suspension procedures for certificated public school employees, particularly for incidents involving sexual misconduct. The allegations of sexual assaults against elementary students at Miramonte Elementary School in South Los Angeles sparked public outcry over the certificated employee dismissal process when one of the alleged molesters, a third grade teacher, settled the teacher dismissal proceeding against him for $40,000. The settlement highlighted the difficulties school districts face in conducting dismissal proceedings, even in cases involving egregious allegations.
Senate Bill 1530, introduced by State Senator Alex Padilla (D - San Fernando Valley) seeks to streamline the process for suspending or dismissing certificated employees for serious offenses. Below we describe current law, and how SB 1530 would change it.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
The Importance of Child Find
By Geneva Englebrecht, Associate
and Adam Newman, Partner
Cerritos Office
In our April 2012 post we touched on the dangers of over-identifying and misidentifying students who may or may not be eligible for special education and related services. For May, we’ll explore the opposite side of the coin: failing to seek out and identify students.
Various federal and state laws govern the process for locating and identifying students potentially eligible to receive special education and related services. Child find obligations start at age 3 (federal and state law), and further, students between the ages of 6 and 18 years are subject to compulsory full-time education. (Education Code Section 48200, et seq.) California law requires local education agencies ("LEA") to actively seek out children who may be eligible for special education. LEAs are required to have systems in place that ensure that individuals with exceptional needs are referred for assessment when necessary. (California Education Code sections 56300-56302)
and Adam Newman, Partner
Cerritos Office
In our April 2012 post we touched on the dangers of over-identifying and misidentifying students who may or may not be eligible for special education and related services. For May, we’ll explore the opposite side of the coin: failing to seek out and identify students.
Various federal and state laws govern the process for locating and identifying students potentially eligible to receive special education and related services. Child find obligations start at age 3 (federal and state law), and further, students between the ages of 6 and 18 years are subject to compulsory full-time education. (Education Code Section 48200, et seq.) California law requires local education agencies ("LEA") to actively seek out children who may be eligible for special education. LEAs are required to have systems in place that ensure that individuals with exceptional needs are referred for assessment when necessary. (California Education Code sections 56300-56302)
Friday, May 18, 2012
May Districts Impose Local Vendor Bid Preferences?
By Suparna Jain, Associate
and Hugh Lee, Partner
Cerritos Office
In an effort to help spur local economic growth and opportunity, especially during times of financial hardship, there have been many inquiries into whether school and community college districts may impose local vendor bid preferences on their bids.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code sections 20111 and 20651, school and community college districts are required to competitively bid any contract involving an expenditure of more than $81,000 (adjusted annually) for equipment, materials or supplies to be furnished, sold, or leased to a school district, and services, except construction services and repairs, including maintenance as defined in Section 20115. As required by law, a school district and community college district must award such competitively bid contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. The public policy behind the statutes on competitive bidding is to enhance competition and to prevent corruption and undue influence. Competitive bidding also guards against favoritism, extravagance, fraud, and serves the public by preventing waste and securing the best economic result. A contract made without compliance with competitive bidding, where such bidding is required by statute, is void and unenforceable as being in excess of the public agency’s power.
and Hugh Lee, Partner
Cerritos Office
In an effort to help spur local economic growth and opportunity, especially during times of financial hardship, there have been many inquiries into whether school and community college districts may impose local vendor bid preferences on their bids.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code sections 20111 and 20651, school and community college districts are required to competitively bid any contract involving an expenditure of more than $81,000 (adjusted annually) for equipment, materials or supplies to be furnished, sold, or leased to a school district, and services, except construction services and repairs, including maintenance as defined in Section 20115. As required by law, a school district and community college district must award such competitively bid contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. The public policy behind the statutes on competitive bidding is to enhance competition and to prevent corruption and undue influence. Competitive bidding also guards against favoritism, extravagance, fraud, and serves the public by preventing waste and securing the best economic result. A contract made without compliance with competitive bidding, where such bidding is required by statute, is void and unenforceable as being in excess of the public agency’s power.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Ninth Circuit Decision Allows Intern Teachers to Temporarily Meet "Highly Qualified" Status Under NCLB
By Jabari Willis, Senior Associate
Cerritos Office
and Mark Bresee, Partner
Irvine Office
In Renee v. Duncan (Renee III), issued May 10, 2012, the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a Department of Education regulation allowing "intern teachers" to meet the No Child Left Behind ("NCLB") definition of highly qualified continued to violate the text of NCLB, but acknowledged that a 2010 action by Congress amended federal law, at least temporarily, to permit the Department of Education regulation to go into effect. As a result of the 9th Circuit's most recent decision, intern teachers who under the regulation "demonstrate satisfactory progress toward full certification" are considered "highly qualified" within the meaning of NCLB.
The Renee case is based upon a clash between the supporters of traditional teacher education and proponents of alternative-teaching programs. The original lawsuit (Renee I) was filed by a group of California activists and groups of minority parents and children, who argue that the regulation permitted a disproportionate number of teaching "interns" to teach in California schools with large proportions of minority and low-income students.
Cerritos Office
and Mark Bresee, Partner
Irvine Office
In Renee v. Duncan (Renee III), issued May 10, 2012, the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a Department of Education regulation allowing "intern teachers" to meet the No Child Left Behind ("NCLB") definition of highly qualified continued to violate the text of NCLB, but acknowledged that a 2010 action by Congress amended federal law, at least temporarily, to permit the Department of Education regulation to go into effect. As a result of the 9th Circuit's most recent decision, intern teachers who under the regulation "demonstrate satisfactory progress toward full certification" are considered "highly qualified" within the meaning of NCLB.
The Renee case is based upon a clash between the supporters of traditional teacher education and proponents of alternative-teaching programs. The original lawsuit (Renee I) was filed by a group of California activists and groups of minority parents and children, who argue that the regulation permitted a disproportionate number of teaching "interns" to teach in California schools with large proportions of minority and low-income students.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Responding to a Student Sexting Incident Without a Scandal
By Penelope Glover, Senior Associate
and Chet Quaide, Partner
Pleasanton Office
On any given day, an online search for "sexting" news will likely not only uncover several sexting incidents, but a "scandal" and/or criminal activity. Since sexting seems to have originated as a teen phenomenon, educational institutions are often vulnerable to becoming involved in the news coverage and scandal, particularly if the sexting results in mass expulsions, the mishandling of evidence, criminal charges, or tragedy associated with an alleged overreaction or omission. In many respects, the sexting incidents in the news involve the more extreme cases in which a sexually explicit student photograph is widely disseminated and causes considerable disruption within the educational community. While such incidents occur with some frequency, there are many other sexting incidents which, with the responsible and informed response of administrators, staff, students, and parents, could be swiftly and discretely resolved.
Although the appropriate responses to cyber incidents are fact-dependent, each educational institution responding to a sexting incident must typically confront at least two legal issues, in addition to compiling and evaluating the facts. First, since the nature of the image may impact how it should be handled, does the image constitute child pornography? Second, should the educational institution report the image to Child Protective Services ("CPS")?
and Chet Quaide, Partner
Pleasanton Office
On any given day, an online search for "sexting" news will likely not only uncover several sexting incidents, but a "scandal" and/or criminal activity. Since sexting seems to have originated as a teen phenomenon, educational institutions are often vulnerable to becoming involved in the news coverage and scandal, particularly if the sexting results in mass expulsions, the mishandling of evidence, criminal charges, or tragedy associated with an alleged overreaction or omission. In many respects, the sexting incidents in the news involve the more extreme cases in which a sexually explicit student photograph is widely disseminated and causes considerable disruption within the educational community. While such incidents occur with some frequency, there are many other sexting incidents which, with the responsible and informed response of administrators, staff, students, and parents, could be swiftly and discretely resolved.
Although the appropriate responses to cyber incidents are fact-dependent, each educational institution responding to a sexting incident must typically confront at least two legal issues, in addition to compiling and evaluating the facts. First, since the nature of the image may impact how it should be handled, does the image constitute child pornography? Second, should the educational institution report the image to Child Protective Services ("CPS")?
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Brown Act Does Not Prohibit Written Communications to School Board Members, But Conveying Certain Information Can be a Violation
By James Scot Yarnell, Partner
Sacramento Office
We are periodically asked whether a "weekly update" memorandum which many superintendents distribute to school district governing board members violates the Brown Act. As a general rule, a weekly update distributed to Board members will not violate the Brown Act unless the memo communicates the "comments or position" of a Board member to other members.
Consider the following scenario: In response to a Board member request for information regarding the possible use of District fields by local athletic clubs, a superintendent issued a weekly update to the Board containing historical background information regarding the former use of District fields for athletic competitions by adult league athletic clubs. A long-time current Board member was the source of this information. Thus, the text of the weekly update stated, "Trustee ____________ shared the following information . . ." and proceeded to report a sequence of largely negative activities, observations and recollections by the trustee. In this scenario, a potential violation has occurred.
Sacramento Office
We are periodically asked whether a "weekly update" memorandum which many superintendents distribute to school district governing board members violates the Brown Act. As a general rule, a weekly update distributed to Board members will not violate the Brown Act unless the memo communicates the "comments or position" of a Board member to other members.
Consider the following scenario: In response to a Board member request for information regarding the possible use of District fields by local athletic clubs, a superintendent issued a weekly update to the Board containing historical background information regarding the former use of District fields for athletic competitions by adult league athletic clubs. A long-time current Board member was the source of this information. Thus, the text of the weekly update stated, "Trustee ____________ shared the following information . . ." and proceeded to report a sequence of largely negative activities, observations and recollections by the trustee. In this scenario, a potential violation has occurred.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Knowing the Must Haves of an FAA
By Geneva Englebrecht, Associate
and Adam Newman, Partner
Cerritos Office
The functional analysis assessment ("FAA" or "Hughes Bill Assessment") is sometimes mistakenly referred to as a functional behavioral assessment ("FBA") but each is derived from a different law and more to the point, there is nothing in the federal law that describes how to do an FBA. The FAA was the by-product of legislation, AB 2586, that ultimately took form for present purposes in Title 5 California Code of Regulations Section 3052. Simply put, an FAA is a comprehensive and detailed analysis/assessment of a student's identified uncorrected maladaptive behavior in various educational settings that ultimately leads to an IEP team determination of whether the student should have a behavior intervention plan ("BIP"). For purposes of this post, the term BIP refers to the BIP as used in the FAA regs. The term BIP is also used in the federal regulations in the context of manifestation determinations. Sadly, though, the federal law provides no definition and no components for the term BIP used in that context.
An FAA is very specific and prescriptive and has extensive requirements regarding which students should receive an FAA, qualifications of the assessor, the procedures for conducting the assessment, and the elements of the assessment report per Title 5 California Code of Regulations Section 3052.
and Adam Newman, Partner
Cerritos Office
The functional analysis assessment ("FAA" or "Hughes Bill Assessment") is sometimes mistakenly referred to as a functional behavioral assessment ("FBA") but each is derived from a different law and more to the point, there is nothing in the federal law that describes how to do an FBA. The FAA was the by-product of legislation, AB 2586, that ultimately took form for present purposes in Title 5 California Code of Regulations Section 3052. Simply put, an FAA is a comprehensive and detailed analysis/assessment of a student's identified uncorrected maladaptive behavior in various educational settings that ultimately leads to an IEP team determination of whether the student should have a behavior intervention plan ("BIP"). For purposes of this post, the term BIP refers to the BIP as used in the FAA regs. The term BIP is also used in the federal regulations in the context of manifestation determinations. Sadly, though, the federal law provides no definition and no components for the term BIP used in that context.
An FAA is very specific and prescriptive and has extensive requirements regarding which students should receive an FAA, qualifications of the assessor, the procedures for conducting the assessment, and the elements of the assessment report per Title 5 California Code of Regulations Section 3052.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)