Lozano Smith's attorneys are recognized leaders in the state on charter school issues. The firm has been involved in every aspect of charter school law on behalf of education agencies throughout the state, including review of initial and renewal petitions, assisting boards with the denial and appeals process, assisting in all aspects of facilities issues, drafting Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) for operational and special education services, assisting staff in oversight of approved charters, and charter revocation. The firm has also assisted school districts and county boards of education to establish and operate dependent charter schools.
Areas of Practice
To ensure the success of its clients, the Charter Schools Practice Group specializes in:
- Review of petitions to establish charter schools
- MOUs for operational and special education services
- Reviewing and assisting districts with renewal and revocation processes
- Navigate facilities obligations to charter schools
Real World Applications
The firm's attorneys have analyzed numerous petitions submitted to school districts throughout the state and formulated strategy on how to improve the charter petitions to provide better oversight or, alternatively, how to make findings to deny the petition. Lozano Smith has advised numerous clients on issues relating to Proposition 39 charter facilities and related funding questions. This has included negotiating facilities agreements and litigating issues regarding use of particular facilities.
Charter School Facilities
The firm has provided counsel and advocacy in every aspect of charter school law on behalf of authorizers throughout the state, including assisting in all aspects of charter school facilities issues and Prop. 39. Lozano Smith has provided advice to many school district clients on issues regarding Proposition 39, charter school facilities, and related legal obligations. This advice has been on issues related to negotiating facilities agreements with charter schools, reviewing and negotiating charter school petitions, as well as litigating issues regarding use of particular facilities. We also counsel large and diverse school districts that are impacted by a high concentration of charter schools.
State Board of Education Adopts Waiver Policy for Unlawfully Located Nonclassroom-based Charter Schools
April 2017 Number 15 The State Board of Education (State Board) recently approved Policy No. 17-01 (Policy), which permits the board to issue temporary waivers to nonclassroom-based charter schools operating "resource centers" outside the geographical boundaries of their chartering school district. The State Board's decision comes on the heels of a closely watched charter school decision, Anderson Union High School District v. Shasta Secondary Home School (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262 (Ander...
February 2017 Number 9 Under new leadership following the 2016 presidential election, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) issued a joint "Dear Colleague" letter on February 22, 2017 withdrawing the Obama administration's May 2016 letter and guidance regarding transgender students and sex-based discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq.) and Title IX's regulations. The prior letter and guid...
February 2017 Number 7 A California Court of Appeal has held that a county board of education may not grant exemptions from zoning ordinances under Government Code section 53094. ( San Jose Unified School District v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (Jan 24, 2017, No. H041088) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ < http://www.courts. ca.gov/opinions/documents/H041088.PDF >.) Specifically, county boards may not exempt the charter schools they authorize from zoning ordinances. School districts ...
January 2017 Number 5 The Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Anderson Union High School District v. Shasta Secondary Home School (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262 (Anderson) is now binding law in California. Following successful legal argument by Lozano Smith, the court, on October 17, 2016, confirmed that the geographic and site limitations of the Charter Schools Act (Act) are applicable to all charter schools, including “nonclassroom-based” programs. On January 18, ...
California Court Rules that Charter Schools Generally Cannot Locate Outside of Their Authorizing School District’s Boundaries
October 2016 Number 79 In a case watched closely by the charter school community - including school districts, county offices of education and charter operators - California's Third District Court of Appeal has issued an opinion which holds that the geographic and site limitations of the Charter Schools Act (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.) are applicable to all charter schools, including "nonclassroom-based" programs. (Anderson Union High School District v. Shasta Secondary Home School (O...
October 2016 Number 74 On September 30, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed Assembly Bill (AB) 709, which would have expressly required California charter schools to comply with the same transparency and conflict of interest requirements as traditional public school districts. With recent reports of mismanagement by charter school governing boards across the state, there is constant discussion as to which conflict of interest and transparency laws apply to charter schools. AB 709 specifically...
July 2016 Number 45 Governor Jerry Brown recently approved Senate Bill 7 (SB 7), increasing the age to buy tobacco for smoking, dipping, chewing and "vaping" from age 18 to age 21. The law became effective June 4, 2016. The new law makes California the second state, besides Hawaii, to increase the age to buy tobacco from 18 to 21. SB 7 amends provisions of the Business and Professions Code and the Penal Code that govern the sale, possession and use of tobacco products. The bill proh...
|In Anderson Union High School District v. Shasta Secondary Home School (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262, the Lozano Smith litigation team successfully argued, in a case of first impression, that the geographic and site limitations of the Charter Schools Act (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.) are applicable to all charter schools, including “nonclassroom-based” programs.|
|CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance (“ELA”) often retains our firm to litigate matters that will have an impact on school districts and county boards of education on a statewide basis. We have been retained by ELA to file amicus briefing in matters where LAUSD was a party, including UTLA v. LAUSD (2012) 54 Cal.4th 504 (regarding whether provisions of California’s Charter Schools Act regarding petition review precludes the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.)|
|ELA retained Lozano Smith to request that the Court of Appeal publish a significant decision regarding charter school facilities under Prop. 39 (CCSA v. LAUSD (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 689.). The request to publish was successful.|
|Presently, Lozano Smith is litigating an appeal out of Shasta County Superior Court, on whether a nonclassroom-based charter school may establish “resource centers” in non-chartering districts in the county of the chartering district.|
|Prevailing in litigation that challenged the Alameda County Board of Education’s decision not to renew a countywide charter school due to significant operational and governance issues.|
|Advising North Monterey County Unified School District on the oversight and revocation of the charter of a nonclassroom-based charter school that persistently permitted the purchase of religious instructional materials with public funds.|
|Working with the Board of the Sacramento City Unified School District through the closure of the Visual and Performing Arts Charter School (VAPAC) and negotiations over the disposition of VAPAC’s assets and the resolution of its debts to the District.|
|Working with Westwood Unified School District to address fiscal and conflict of interest issues at a charter school, and, in lieu of revocation, negotiating a settlement agreement that allowed the charter school to continue operating after taking measures to address the district’s concerns.|
|Successfully defended a charter school’s challenge in Superior Court to the Pajaro Valley Unified School District’s rights to control use of its facilities.|
|Assisted a school district in community discussions regarding fiscal and programmatic impacts a new charter school would have on that Basic Aid district.|
|Provided counsel to numerous school districts through denial of the charter school petition and subsequent appeals to the County and State Boards of Education.|
|Assisted in the formation of “dependent” charter schools.|
|Worked with a school district to favorably settle an audit appeal on behalf of a dependent charter school that would have disallowed half of the school’s annual budget. We were able to demonstrate compliance by the District for a significant portion of the independent study attendance accounting requirements that were the subject of the finding.|
|Successfully defended a charter school’s challenge in Superior Court to a school district’s rights to control use of its facilities.|
|Successfully prosecuted the revocation of the charter of Gateway Charter School. Successfully defended Fresno Unified School District from $1.8 million in claims from the charter school’s creditors.|
|Assisted West Park Elementary School District in revoking the charter of Rosalyn Charter School - avoiding any litigation against the district challenging its decision.|