lawprofessors

By  Michelle Ball , California Education Attorney for Students since 1995 Have you ever wondered just HOW our schools are funded?  A great summary is included in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos , handed down this week (December 29, 2011) by the Supreme Court of California. Justice Werdegar, writing for the Court, ultimately upholds Assembly Bill 1X26 which authorizes the closing of  redevelopment agencies in California.  The case comes to a contrary opinion regarding Assembly Bill 1X27, a bill which gave a way for redevelopment agencies to remain open so long as they made certain payments.   Here is what Justice Werdegar states (excerpted from the California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos case directly) in the "Background" section.  I particularly like his wording when he says "a second event of seismic significance... ," cute considering we are in California! " A.   Government Finance: The Integration of State, School, a...

By  Michelle Ball , California Education Attorney for Students since 1995 The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the denial of a parents request for reimbursement ($$$) for the cost of a private placement at Lindamood Bell .  This case illustrates how tricky it can be to obtain reimbursement from a school district for the unilateral placement (e.g. by parents alone) of a child in a private school. In the case of Berns v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools , decided December 22, 2011, Judge Gottschall opined that the student in question had been provided a Free and Appropriate Public Education ( FAPE ), as the student made adequate progress toward his goals during his public school placement.  According to the case, the student in question suffered from a Traumatic Brain Injury ( TBI ) at age 4.  After that time, the school assessed him and placed him in a pre -kindergarten classroom for four weeks.  While in the placement the student met several of hi...

By  Michelle Ball , California Education Attorney for Students since 1995 Pursuant to California Education Code section 66017 , a California Community College, California State University (CSU), or University of California (UC) may suspend a student for willful disruption, to protect lives or property, or to ensure the maintenance of order.  [This is not an exhaustive list.]  However, if the suspension by the college is issued immediately (e.g. the student is kicked off campus right then), the student is legally entitled, per this section, to a hearing within 10 days. If the college suspension is not issued immediately (e.g. the student is still allowed to attend classes) or is merely proposed, 66017 states that the hearing must be "prompt" which may or may not mean "within 10 days."  I would argue the college student is still entitled to a hearing within that amount of time. Section 66017 also instructs colleges to adopt procedures and appoint personnel to deal...

By  Michelle Ball , California Education Attorney for Students since 1995 As a California Education Attorney, I have heard horror stories for over 16 years since I started helping parents and students.  Sadly, the story of five year old Michael Davis, a student of Stockton Unified School District is nothing unusual.  It is again, a wake up call for parents. From what I can gather from internet reports ( KCRA , Newsone ), Michael is a 5 year old student who allegedly gets in fights and is a behavior problem at school.  The first thing here is HE IS 5 YEARS OLD.   There is no legal obligation to put your kids in school until they turn six years old .  A student who can't sit still, who fights, etc. may just be a rambunctious student and not ready for the controlling environment that the public schools have turned out to be.  Also, sometimes five year olds can simply be wild and enthusiastic in a physical or distracting way.  It was not until the pub...