Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Can IEP Teams Say "No" To Special Education Services Based on Money Woes? No, No and No!

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Oftentimes parents attend an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting, and although their child needs additional services to meet his or her goals, can be denied needed services based on reasons such as: "no funding," or "we just don't have the resources," or "that is not available here as there are no staff."  Are these legitimate reasons to deny a student services that will meet their unique needs?  No!

The whole special education system can be very overwhelming for parents and they often "trust" the IEP team to guide them on what their child should or should not receive as far as services, placement, and education.  Parents may also simply accept an IEP team denial of services based on money woes of the school district.  However, regardless of the funding problems school districts seem to be having right now, they cannot deny special education services based on those issues.  If a student requires a service (e.g. resource class, speech therapy, or a one-on-one aide) to receive an appropriate education to meet their unique needs, the district should provide the service.

If a district wants to deny services, they have to do so legitimately.  In other words, do a thorough assessment to evaluate, and prove the service is not needed.  If they do this, they may be able to "legitimately" defend themselves on a decision to reduce or deny services.  However, the bottom line is that many districts still will flat out say that "we can't afford speech and language therapy," and tell the parent to take a hike.  Sorry to say, but that is not legitimate.

If the district does not have staff to provide a service such as speech and language therapy, and the special needs student requires that service, the district has to provide the service another way.  For example, the district can pay a private therapist to deliver the speech and language therapy off site and can also pay for transportation to and from the therapy.  The district can't just say the child won't receive the service as they don't have the staff.  If the child needs the service to meet their unique needs, it needs to be provided one way or another.

This is one reason why recording IEP meetings is so crucial.  Often parents can document denials based on lack of money simply by recording the meeting.  When a school/district representative says "we don't offer speech and language due to the budget crisis," or words to that effect, the parents have a valid argument which they can later raise in a due process hearing to overcome the denial.

If a school or district is denying services based on money, parents need to stand up and say that is an unacceptable reason for the denial and demand the service be provided.

Best,
Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Email: help@edlaw4students.com
[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.
READ MORE - Can IEP Teams Say "No" To Special Education Services Based on Money Woes? No, No and No!

Monday, January 23, 2012

School Expulsion Hearings: Parents Have The Right To Request Witnesses Be Subpoenaed

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

School expulsions seem to be everywhere now.  Expulsion hearings are very important, and parents need to know their rights.  One of these rights is the right to request that subpoenas be issued to potential witnesses when a school expulsion is pending.

The right to subpoena witnesses
 (order to appear before a body or face consequences)  is an important part of our judicial system.  Courts and other agencies must be able to hear the complete case, listen to all the evidence, and see if the "story" turns out to be true.  This subpoena right also exists in the context of school expulsion hearings, but the subpoena power rests with the school district in question.

California Education Code section 48918(i)(1) states as follows:
"Before the hearing has commenced, the governing board may
issue subpoenas at the request of either the superintendent of
schools or the superintendent's designee or the pupil, for the
personal appearance of percipient witnesses at the hearing. After the
hearing has commenced, the governing board or the hearing officer or
administrative panel may, upon request of either the county
superintendent of schools or the superintendent's designee or the
pupil, issue subpoenas..."


What this means is that parents may request that the district involved issue subpoenas for any actual witnesses who may have seen what occurred.  So, if Johnny is alleged to have stolen money and there was a witness, parents may ask that that person be ordered to testify at the hearing.  Often districts do NOT subpoena witnesses unless a parent asks them to.  Rather, districts instead attempt to get a child expelled based on sworn statements alone with no direct testimony.  This could cause trouble for a district on appeal if there is no confession.

If there is an important witness who will help the child's case, parents cannot expect the district involved to subpoena that person.  In fact, why would the district want to subpoena them as it would ruin their case?!  As such, parents need to actually request that witnesses be subpoenaed by the district in advance.  If the district will not issue the subpoenas, well that is another story for another day and a potential appeal to the board looms.  Chances are that most districts will subpoena witnesses when this is requested by parents.

This all may be confusing, so don't go it alone.  Parents, if you don't know your rights, bring someone in who does...

Best,
Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Email: help@edlaw4students.com
[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!] 
READ MORE - School Expulsion Hearings: Parents Have The Right To Request Witnesses Be Subpoenaed

Thursday, January 19, 2012

High School Sports Team Exclusion Reversed- A Great Client Testimonial About The Law Office of Michelle Ball

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

I owe a great debt of gratitude to all my clients who have trusted and supported the Law Office of Michelle Ball since 1995.  As a student attorney, going against schools and colleges in all their various forms, it is not always easy for me or the families I represent.  I am grateful for all the families who have trusted me to get involved and so thankful when they take time to write a positive review of my office.  Check out this testimonial which tells the story of a dire situation involving a sports team exclusion.  I am very proud of the help I have provided and so glad this student is back on the team.  

"My husband and I decided to hire Michelle Ball after our daughter was unjustly cut from the high school varsity soccer team. We appealed the coach’s decision and met with a panel of six which included the assistant principal, the coach, the athletic director, as well as four others. They contended that our daughter had violated the CIF code of conduct by engaging in an altercation which resulted in a school suspension. We agreed that our daughter needed to be punished but that cutting her from the team was unjustly harsh and unwarranted! She had never been in trouble before and was a good student.  They then said that the principal would make the final decision. Days later, the principal called and said she upheld the panel’s decision to not let my daughter back on the team. The principal was not present during the appeal so she never heard what we had to say!!! My husband and I knew that going against the school by ourselves was a futile endeavor. We knew we had to fight and right the wrong that was being done! It was at that point we knew we needed legal representation. We contacted Michelle Ball for that precise reason. Michelle’s staff was always very professional and our questions were promptly and courteously answered. Through her expertise and knowledge we learned that the code of conduct the school so righteously indicated our daughter had violated was actually being violated by the school itself!! Michelle sent a letter to the school district superintendent detailing the school’s obdurate behavior which in itself bordered on gender discrimination. That same week, my husband and daughter were called by the school principal for a meeting. She apologized and told our daughter she was reinstated back on the varsity soccer team. We truly believe that had it not been for Michelle Ball, our daughter would’ve lost out on playing a sport she truly loves her final year of high school!!! Thank you Michelle for righting the wrong of a system that at times acts omnipotent!!!" -- M.A.T. 

Thanks M.A.T!  I truly appreciate the kind words.


 Please note: these testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of a legal matter.

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Email: help@edlaw4students.com

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - High School Sports Team Exclusion Reversed- A Great Client Testimonial About The Law Office of Michelle Ball

Monday, January 9, 2012

Sexual Battery As A Basis For Expulsion, Suspension, Or Other School Discipline

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

I often speak with parents who are shocked and dismayed that their child has been alleged to have committed a sexual battery.  This word and allegation seem to be thrown around willy nilly without thought or understanding for what the REAL definition of sexual battery might be.  As such, understanding what "sexual battery" actually means is important and should be understood by everyone, lest such an allegation mar a student's record and reputation for life.

I am frequently surprised when I see suspension forms and/or expulsion recommendations containing the allegation of student "sexual battery."  This allegation is very heavy, and is specifically defined in the Education and Penal Codes.  This term should not be used unless proof actually exists to support the claim.  


California Education Code 
§48900(n) authorizes schools to suspend or expel students for sexual battery.  Rather than contain a definition in the Education Code, §48900(n) references California Penal Code section §243.4 for a definition of sexual battery.

Per Penal Code §243.4 the elements of sexual battery, in a nutshell, are: 

SEXUAL BATTERY occurs if:
-- A person touches a victim's intimate part and/or forces the victim to touch them or someone else, AND
--  This is against the will of the victim, AND
--  The touching is for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse, AND the act occurs:
* While the victim is unlawfully restrained, OR
* While the victim is institutionalized for medical treatment and is seriously disabled and/or medically incapacitated, OR 
* The victim is unconscious and is touched by a professional who falsely represented the touching was for a professional purpose.

[please note this is my summary only and is not a quote of the statute- please click link to get complete code]

Now which of these MAY apply with California students?  Any, but the one which would typically fit in a school setting is touching while a person is unlawfully restrained, correct?  The second scenario (institutionalized touching) could potentially occur if the victim and student were e.g. placed in residential treatment or the student was visiting a hospital, which is an uncommon occurrence.  The third one (professional) seems to apply to e.g. therapists, doctors, or other such individuals.

If the charge of sexual battery is levied against a student, the parents need to immediately bring the matter to an education attorney to review the facts and circumstances so this allegation can be evaluated and confronted promptly.  If not, the student may have this heinous allegation haunt them for years to come. They may also be cited by the police for alleged sexual battery when none occurred.  


Additionally, parents may be talked into signing an agreement (expulsion, suspension, behavior contract, etc.) which contains a school sexual battery charge.  Or, if they choose instead to go to e.g. an expulsion hearing, they will present their defense of "no sexual battery" to an expulsion panel of non-legal personnel (district employees) who may not grasp just WHAT a sexual battery is and/or whether the student involved actually sexually battered someone.  Even if a parent brings the law with them, or attempts to explain what a sexual battery is to the expulsion panel, they may not be listened to as they are not attorneys.  As attorneys are the only ones licensed to interpret the law, without an attorney, a parent's best argument of NO SEXUAL BATTERY, may still fall on deaf ears.

Parents, it is vital that you seek out legal help if your child has the charge of sexual battery levelled against him or her.  Failing to do so, can have horrible consequences and your child may be marred by such allegations for life.  Don't make the mistake of misunderstanding just what you are getting into when facing a sexual battery allegation.

Best, 

Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Email: help@edlaw4students.com

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - Sexual Battery As A Basis For Expulsion, Suspension, Or Other School Discipline

Thursday, January 5, 2012

What is the Definition of Special Education in California?

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Thousands of parents have their children in special education, but do not have any idea what "special education" really is.  In fact their special education definitions can vary greatly as no one is out there giving them instruction or direction on the LEGAL definition of special education.   There IS an actual, specific, legal definition, of "special education" outlined in both state and federal law.

Per California Education Code section 56031(a) "Special education," is:

"specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parent, to meet the unique needs of individuals with exceptional needs, including instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and other settings, and instruction in physical education."

The federal definition, outlined in the United States Code, volume 20, section 1401 (29) [20 USC 1401], which is even more brief:, states:

"The term "special education" means specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including -
(A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and
(B) instruction in physical education."

California Education Code section 56031(b) also includes in its definition of special education:

a) Speech and language services.
b) Other "related services" [see section 56363 for a full list]
c) Travel training.
d) Vocational education

The federal law does not include these services in the DEFINITION of "special education," as they are simply categorized under "related services."

All of these subjects could fill books as needed, but needless to say, these are the basic definitions of "special education" with which parents should become familiar.   The legal standard may need to be referenced as even districts can be confused about their obligations.   For example, I had a client who was homebound (could not leave to attend school due to disability issues) and the district denied the student was qualified for special education as independent study was available.  Their denial was mistaken as disabled students may receive instructional services in the home via special education.  When the school was educated on just what special education is and who qualifies, the student was promptly qualified and provided with one-on-one instruction from credentialed teachers at home.

Parents must know these legal definitions exist and what they are.  Attempting to argue any other special education "definitions" can result in losses for the student and confusion for all.  If parents utilize proper legal definitions in their advocacy, they should be able to get further in their quest for services.


Best,

Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/
[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]
READ MORE - What is the Definition of Special Education in California?

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

The First Things To Do When Your Child Is Suspended From School (And Even Before!)

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Parents are not usually prepared for a school suspension, which can come as a shock, and completely disrupt the day, week, or month (if it is extended prior to an expulsion).  As such, this is an important article to read and pass on, as you never know when you may get "that call" from the elementary, junior high, or high school telling you to come pick up your child as they have been suspended.  What do you do when you get the call your child is being suspended?

1)  TAKE DOWN ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION IN WRITING:  In that initial call, during meetings, in talks with your child, or otherwise, write down all information and keep it handy.  Ensure you note down WHO you are talking to, WHAT is alleged to have happened, WHERE the event(s) allegedly took place, WHAT your child is alleged to have done, WHEN the activity supposedly happened, and HOW everything went down.  Yes, this is "Journalism 101" but I was on the newspaper staff in high school (it paid off!).  This information is critical to getting the whole story, and verifying you know everything.

2)  STAY ON THE OFFENSE:  In the school discipline process, often it can feel like "nothing can be done about it," and that a parent has no control.  This is not true.  Parents CAN do something about it and should always stay on the OFFENSE, going to bat for their child and attempting to SOLVE the problem at hand (suspension or otherwise) in the most positive way.  Taking the steps here can help you to stay positive and may garner beneficial results.

3)  MEET WITH SCHOOL STAFF AND WITNESSES:  Go down to the school immediately after the call, if possible, BEFORE your child leaves and meet with the staff to go over exactly what is alleged.  LISTEN a lot!  Gather the facts.  Try to set up a meeting with the alleged witnesses to the situation.  For example, if the PE (Physical Education) teacher saw an alleged exchange of knives, weapons, drugs, etc. see if they can come in to the office RIGHT THEN to discuss the matter.  Take copious notes as usual.

4)  DON'T SIGN ANYTHING:  Need I say more?  Don't sign the suspension form (be ready and willing for the school to note "parent refused to sign"on the form).  Don't have your child sign anything either.

5)  RESTRICT THE INFORMATION YOUR CHILD PROVIDES:  During the entire suspension and pre-suspension (e.g. investigation) process, it is not a good idea to have your child answer questions, write or sign a statement, or give any information.  Politely refusing to provide information may be very difficult, as it is tough to not give into pressure, taunts, threats of increased punishment, intimidating adults, a cop dangling potential juvenile detention, or otherwise.  A child may be scared, but parents, you must teach your child to politely decline to give, write, sign, etc. information or a statement.  You will have to work out how best to achieve this goal in a way in a way that does not look like the child is being difficult and/or is guilty.  Please note, this is MOST important with school expulsion, but as what is said during a suspension investigation could be used for expulsion, it is also important during the suspension process.  Make the school do the work and don't hand them an admission.  Admissions can lead to not only suspensions, but also expulsion, a ticket from the School Resource Officer (cop), and other bad things.

6)  DO NOT HAVE YOUR CHILD IN THE ROOM DURING YOUR MEETINGS:   Self-explanatory  considering number 5.  We don't want the school to be inspecting your child's reactions.

7) ASK FOR A LESSER AND/OR NO PUNISHMENT:  Remember "It can't hurt to ask?"  Well, that statement is as true here as everywhere in life.  Ask for no punishment, or an alternative punishment (e.g. detention?), and that is what you  may receive.

8)  FILE A SUSPENSION APPEAL:  Occasionally, districts actually have a suspension appeal process.  For example, in  Elk Grove Unified School District (Elk Grove, California), there is an actual written process and forms to complete.  Most districts do not have any formal suspension appeal process in place, BUT that does not mean you should not inquire about an appeal and go up the administrative line.  Ask the school and the district if there is a suspension appeal process, THE DAY OF THE SUSPENSION.  If there IS a process, follow it.  If there is not, simply go up the chain of command.  If you met with the Vice Principal initially, call the Principal next, then the District office, etc.  Make some polite noise and you may get the suspension overturned or shortened.

Parents, please keep this list handy and pass it on to anyone you know who has kids in school.  You may not think "this could happen to you," (or your friends) but it happens to thousands of parents weekly.  For the most part, parents simply don't know what to do, or how best to proceed when struck with a student suspension.  You can do something about it.


Best,
Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/
[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]
READ MORE - The First Things To Do When Your Child Is Suspended From School (And Even Before!)

Friday, December 30, 2011

Your Tax Dollars At Work, School Funding Explained In California Supreme Court Case: California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos

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, and Municipal Financing
For much of the 20th century, state and local governments were financed independently under the "separation of sources" doctrine. In 1910, the Legislature proposed, and the voters approved, a constitutional amendment granting local governments exclusive control over the property tax. (Cal. Const., art. XIII, former § 10, enacted by Sen. Const. Amend. No. 1, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1910); see Simmons, California Tax Collection: Time for Reform (2008) 48 Santa Clara L.Rev. 279, 285-286; Ehrman & Flavin, Taxing Cal. Property (4th ed. 2011) §§ 1:9-1:10, p. 1-14.) Each jurisdiction (city, county, special district, and school district) could levy its own independent property tax. (See, e.g.,Temescal Water Co. v. Niemann (1913) 22 Cal.App. 174, 176 ["It is conceded . . . that a municipality has the right to assess all real property found within its limits for the purpose of maintaining the municipal revenues, and that the county taxing officials have the right to levy upon the same property for county purposes."].)
This system of finance had significant consequences for education. Under the state Constitution, the Legislature is obligated to provide for a public school system. (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 5; Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006)39 Cal.4th 1164, 1195.) Seeking to promote local involvement, the Legislature established school districts as political subdivisions and delegated to them that duty. (Wells, at p. 1195; Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 680-681; see also California Teachers Assn. v. Hayes (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1523.) Historically, school districts were largely funded out of local property taxes. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 592 (Serrano I); Serrano v. Priest (1976) 18 Cal.3d 728, 737-738 (Serrano II); see County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1450.) Under the California system of financing as it {Slip Opn. Page 5} existed until the 1970's, different school districts could levy taxes and generate vastly different revenues; because of the difference in property values, the same property tax rate would yield widely differing sums in, for example, Beverly Hills and Baldwin Park. (Serrano I, at pp. 592-594.)
We invalidated that system of financing in Serrano I and Serrano II, holding that education was a fundamental interest (Serrano I, supra, 5 Cal.3d at pp. 608-609; Serrano II, supra, 18 Cal.3d at pp. 765-766) and that financing heavily dependent on local property tax bases denied students equal protection (Serrano I, at pp. 614-615; Serrano II, at pp. 768-769, 776). The Serrano decisions threw "the division of state and local responsibility for educational funding" into " 'a state of flux.' " (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 414, 419.) In their aftermath, a "Byzantine" system of financing (California Teachers Assn. v. Hayes, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 1525) evolved in which the state became the principal financial backstop for local school districts. Funding equalization was achieved by capping individual districts' abilities to raise revenue and enhancing state contributions to ensure minimum funding levels. (Lockard, In the Wake of Williams v. State: The Past, Present, and Future of Education Finance Litigation in California (2005) 57 Hastings L.J. 385, 388-391; see generally Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation, supra,39 Cal.4th at p. 1194 [discussing current funding regime].)
A second event of seismic significance followed shortly after, with the voters' 1978 adoption of Proposition 13. (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, added by Prop. 13, as approved by voters, Primary Elec. (June 6, 1978).) As noted, before 1978 cities and counties had been able to levy their own property taxes. Proposition 13 capped ad valorem real property taxes imposed by all local entities at 1 percent (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1, subd. (a)), reducing the amount of revenue available by more than half (Stark,The Right to Vote on Taxes (2001) {Slip Opn. Page 6} 96 Nw.U. L.Rev. 191, 198). In place of multiple property taxes imposed by multiple political subdivisions, it substituted a single tax to be collected by counties and thereafter apportioned. (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1, subd. (a).) Significantly, Proposition 13 did not specify how that 1 percent was to be divided, instead leaving the method of allocation to state law. (See Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1, subd. (a)[real property tax is "to be . . . apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties"]; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 225-227; County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1454-1457; City of Rancho Cucamonga v. Mackzum (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 929, 945.)
Sasaki, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1451-1452; California Teachers Assn. v. Hayes, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1527-1528.) Second, by failing to specify a method of allocation, Proposition 13 largely transferred control over local government finances from the state's many political subdivisions to the state, converting the property tax from a nominally local tax to a de facto state-administered tax subject to a complex system of intergovernmental grants. (See Rev. & Tax. Code, § 95 et seq.; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 226-227; Sasaki, at pp. 1454-1455; Stark, The Right to Vote on Taxes, supra, 96 Nw.U. L.Rev. at p. 198.) fn. 3 Third, by imposing a unified, {Slip Opn. Page 7} shared property tax, Proposition 13 created a zero-sum game in which political subdivisions (cities, counties, special districts, and school districts) would have to compete against each other for their slices of a greatly shrunken pie.
In 1988, the voters added another wrinkle with Proposition 98, which established constitutional minimum funding levels for education and required the state to set aside a designated portion of the General Fund for public schools. (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 8; see Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 420; California Teachers Assn. v. Hayes, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1517-1518.) Two years later, the voters revised and effectively increased the minimum funding requirements for public schools. (Prop. 111, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990) amending Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 8; see County of Sonoma v. Commission on State Mandates (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1289.)
In response to these rising educational demands on the state treasury, the Legislature in 1992 created county educational revenue augmentation funds (ERAF's). (Stats. 1992, chs. 699, 700, pp. 3081-3125; Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 97.2, 97.3; see Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 420-421; City of El Monte v. Commission on State Mandates (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 266, 272-274; County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 1447.) It reduced the portion of property taxes allocated to local governments, deposited the difference in the ERAF's, deemed the balances part of the state's General Fund for purposes of satisfying Proposition 98 {Slip Opn. Page 8} obligations, and distributed these amounts to school districts. (County of Sonoma v. Commission on State Mandates, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1275-1276; see Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 426 [ERAF's are an " 'accounting device' " for reallocating property taxes to school districts from other local government entities].) Periodically thereafter, the Legislature through supplemental legislation required local government entities to further contribute to the ERAF's in order to defray the state's Proposition 98 school funding obligations. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist., at pp. 420-421.) Local governments had no vested right to property taxes (id. at p. 425); accordingly, the Legislature could require ERAF payments as "an exercise of [its] authority to apportion property tax revenues." (City of El Monte, at p. 280; see Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1, subd. (a).)"


For more from this case, please see it here.
Where else could one find such a great summary of the complex background regarding school financing?  Thank you your honor!


Best,

Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.
READ MORE - Your Tax Dollars At Work, School Funding Explained In California Supreme Court Case: California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

IDEA Court Case: Berns v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools

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 his goals and was allegedly making progress toward the others.  He was then recommended to move into kindergarten.


According to Judge Gottschall's opinion, the parents' private assessor had previously recommended that the "optimal" placement (see my blog on using words implying need for the "best" placement here) would be year round with an "all day" kindergarten.  The parents thereafter requested placement in both sessions of kindergarten (morning and afternoon), and were refused based on his progress toward his goals.  The family thereafter became at odds with the district and enrolled their son in Lindamood Bell.  


Although there were several procedural errors by the school alleged, the only question was whether the hearing officer's decision that the student received FAPE was proper.  The Seventh Circuit found that it was and denied the family's request for reimbursement for Lindamood Bell, for attorney fees, and otherwise.


Although this case was not in the California circuit (our court is the Ninth Circuit), it is illustrative of the importance of evidence and support when placing a child in a private school if the parents intend to later seek reimbursement from a school district.  If things are not supported well, or the school can show they DID offer FAPE, parents can be blocked and fail in their reimbursement claim.


Best,
Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.
READ MORE - IDEA Court Case: Berns v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools

Monday, December 12, 2011

California College Suspensions And The Right To A Hearing Within Ten Days

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 with discipline matters on campus.  Other code sections also apply depending on the type of college involved.  Needless to say, I have seen students suspended with no hearing in sight, which is unacceptable.

If you are suspended from college, insist on a prompt hearing within 10 days so you can get back to your studies.  We all know how long ten days can be away from college classes and the impact can be devastating.  When I attended the University of California, ten days was more than one tenth (1/10th) of my whole quarter!  I would certainly have missed a lot of classes, and my grades could have declined significantly, with such an extended period of absence.

Simple knowledge of timelines and assertion of rights can help college students survive the surprise of an unexpected suspension.  Hiring a student attorney can't hurt either.


Best,
Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.
READ MORE - California College Suspensions And The Right To A Hearing Within Ten Days

Friday, December 2, 2011

Did You Hear The One About The Five Year Old Arrested At School And Taken To A Psychiatric Hospital? No, Really- No Joke....

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 public schools came into the picture that this became a disease.

Additionally, the mother states in her KCRA interview that she had asked for special help for some time and was denied behavior support and other services due to money.  Item number 2:  you cannot deny a student with a qualifying handicapping condition (Michael is alleged to have ADHD- Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) the support services which are needed to provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education (aka FAPE) based on money.  He likely qualified for special education under the category of Other Health Impaired, which opened the door for special education and support services.  Sadly, unless he was designated with a "disability," he could not obtain support services which is an issue in and of itself, but I digress.

Next, the school gets the bright idea to have the school cop talk to Michael to "scare him straight."  Mom apparently knew about this in advance.  Item 3: bad idea to try to make a 5 year old scared straight.  This is not a good idea- they are five.  Jail is a vague concept at best and really, could you lock them up in jail anyway?  No.

When the cop went to touch Michael, Michael allegedly batted his hand away, kicked him, and pushed papers around.  Now, parents of five year olds, is this really that unusual?  What about stranger danger!?  I teach my kids the danger of strangers and would not want them to allow any stranger to put their hands on them.  I would actually have them try to get away.  Of course, the fact this was a "cop" in uniform was supposed to make legitimate feelings of fear irrelevant, but I doubt that eased little Michael's mind much.

Next, the cop allegedly zip tied this kid for approximately 2 hours (according to his mother), and took him to a psychiatric facility to be evaluated.  Hmmmmmmm...... that's one really bad way to get a kid evaluated without parental consent.  Yes, if a student is a danger to self or others, they CAN do this, but was this really reasonable?  Had a behavior plan been in place, or had the cop backed off when his "scared straight" approach obviously failed, Michael could have calmed down and gotten back to work.

Long story short, Michael was cited by a cop (at five years old!) and later retrieved from the psychiatric hospital.  The charge was later dismissed (thank you your honor!).

This sounds like fiction, but is a reminder to parents:  THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOUR CHILD.  DO NOT BE COMPLACENT ABOUT THE SCHOOLS.  How would you like your kid carted off to a psychiatric ward when a cop touches them and they react in fear?  How would you like your son or daughter to be tied up by the cops because they would not behave in the institution that is our public schools?  I would not, and do not like it.  Parents may want to investigate placements other than the public schools for their kids, such as home school, as the public schools when it really comes down to it, are not safe at all.  Just ask little Michael Davis how safe they are.