Williams also highlighted the broader data-sharing dynamic at the center of the controversy, noting that “Parents are allowing districts to collect and give to a third party data that they would not otherwise be entitled to.” He emphasized that, in exchange for that access, schools have a responsibility to be transparent about their practices. However, he acknowledged that current systems often fall short, concluding that “unfortunately, that process can be pretty opaque.”

The article outlines rising concern from parents, policymakers and privacy experts about how student data is used and shared by ed tech companies. Lawsuits, audits and federal scrutiny have brought new attention to the issue, while districts continue to balance the benefits of digital learning tools with growing demands for accountability and transparency.

You can read the full article here.

The post The 74 Million article on ed tech lawsuits quotes Mark Williams appeared first on Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.

In a significant decision for California public agencies, the California Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Voice of San Diego v. San Diego Unified School District (2026 S.O.S. 1461), providing guidance on the California Public Records Act’s (“CPRA”)  requirement that public records be made “promptly available” to requesters. For years, agencies and requesters have debated how quickly records must be produced after a CPRA request is received. The Court’s opinion provides important clarity, concluding that the statute does not impose an exact production deadline and instead requires a fact-specific assessment of whether an agency acted reasonably under the circumstances.

Voice of San Diego and its editor sued the San Diego Unified School District (“District”), alleging that the District maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully delaying responses to CPRA requests. Plaintiffs relied on numerous requests submitted over several years and argued that the District routinely took too long to produce responsive records. The Court reasoned that although the CPRA generally requires agencies to determine within 10 days whether responsive records will be disclosed, the statute separately requires that records be made available “promptly.” The Court concluded that the Legislature intentionally chose a flexible standard rather than imposing a fixed number of days for production.

According to the Court, whether records are produced promptly depends on several factors, including:

• The scope and complexity of the request;

• The volume of potentially responsive records;

• The need to search multiple systems or locations;

• Required review for exemptions and redactions;

• Technical limitations and available resources; and

• Whether records are produced on a rolling basis.

The Court emphasized that many of the requests at issue sought large volumes of emails and documents, many of which required extensive review to protect confidential student and personnel information. Under those circumstances, the Court determined that longer production periods did not necessarily establish a violation of the CPRA. The plaintiffs argued that delays of several weeks or months demonstrated that the District failed to make records available promptly. The Court disagreed, explaining that no statutory deadline exists and that courts must evaluate production timelines in context.

Agencies must still act diligently and process CPRA requests without unnecessary delay. However, the opinion confirms that compliance is based on reasonableness under the circumstances rather than a definitive deadline.

The post California Court Defines “Promptly Available” Standard for Public Records Requests appeared first on Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified when the two-year statute of limitations discovery rule under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) accrues and when the two exceptions to the discovery rule apply in its published decision, J.R. v. Ventura Unified School District.

In J.R., the parents challenged the school district’s alleged failure to assess their child for autism, seeking relief from the school district for nine years of the student’s education. Overturning the administrative law judge’s determination that claims alleged to have occurred more than two years before the date of filing were time barred, the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California held that the statute of limitations under the IDEA does not begin until parents have actual knowledge of both the action and that the action caused harm. The District Court also held that both exceptions—withholding information and misrepresentation—applied.

F3 Law represented and advocated on behalf of the California School Boards Association (CSBA) by filing an amicus brief requesting the Ninth Circuit to clarify specific aspects of the law related to the interpretation of the discovery rule. https://blog.csba.org/statute-limitations-idea/

The Ninth Circuit panel reversed the District Court’s judgment, holding that for an IDEA claim alleging that a school district’s failure to assess and diagnose a student has resulted in the alleged denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), the statute of limitations begins to run when parents know or reasonably should know (1) the fact of the school district’s action or inaction (i.e., the failure to assess and diagnose), and (2) that their child is being denied a FAPE (i.e., the child’s education is inadequate). The panel additionally clarified that to apply the misrepresentation exception, the LEA must intentionally mislead or knowingly deceive a parent regarding the subject of the parent’s complaint, while to apply the withholding exception, the information alleged to have been withheld must be information which is statutorily required to be provided. In its decision, the panel clarified the three aspects of the discovery rule about which CSBA had requested legal clarification. 

The Ninth Circuit’s clarification of the statute of limitations and exceptions rules in J.R. is critical. Had the District Court’s decision in J.R. been allowed to stand, it would have effectively eliminated the statute of limitations in many IDEA cases and resulted in substantial financial impact on California LEAs. 

The Ninth Circuit has already begun to apply J.R., setting the stage for OAH and district courts to follow. In deciding J.R.’s sister case, T.M.J. v. Vallejo City Unified School District, the Ninth Circuit followed its reasoning in J.R., upholding the district court’s decision that T.M.J.’s claims alleged to have occurred more than two years before the date of filing were time barred because his parents had become aware three years prior to filing that the student had suffered from an undiagnosed disability. 

“But the fact that most parents are not experts does not mean the statute of limitations will only begin to run upon a new diagnosis, which would again treat the statute of limitations as an actual knowledge standard. . . . [A]lthough parents are not medical experts, parents under the IDEA bear some responsibility for monitoring their children’s special education.”

The post 9th Circuit Clarifies IDEA Statute of Limitations and Exceptions appeared first on Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.

A wide-ranging school choice bill, House File 2754, signed today by Governor Kim Reynolds significantly expands Iowa’s charter school framework and modifies homeschooling regulations in ways that will have direct fiscal, operational, and compliance implications for public school districts. Some key changes under the bill are explained below.

• Expansion of Charter School Funding and Authority

  One feature of the legislation is the extension of Teacher Salary Supplement (TSS) funding to charter schools. Under current law, TSS dollars are directed exclusively to public school districts to support teacher compensation. This bill will redirect approximately $1.3 million annually to charter schools based on enrollment counts, aligning charter schools more closely with district-level funding mechanisms. The bill also expands charter school infrastructure in several ways, including allowing the University of Northern Iowa to authorize new charter schools, in addition to existing authorizers. Charter school students will also gain expanded access to participate in extracurricular activities in their resident public school districts. The legislation also requires public school districts to provide driver education services to charter school students residing within district boundaries, with charter schools responsible for reimbursing costs.

• Homeschooling and Independent Instruction Changes

  The bill makes significant changes to Iowa’s independent private instruction framework. Most notably, it removes the existing cap on the number of unrelated students a homeschooling provider may teach and eliminates the prohibition on charging tuition or fees. These changes will allow families or individuals to operate small, tuition-based instructional settings outside of traditional regulatory structures. 

"When you trust parents, support educators and invest in students outcomes improve, and that’s exactly what we’re doing."

www.desmoinesregister.com/…

The post Iowa School Choice Legislation Expands Charter and Homeschool Flexibilities with Broad Operational and Funding Implications for Public Schools appeared first on Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.

Mounting evidence linking excessive screentime to increases in anxiety, depression, attention disruptions, and other mental health conditions is driving educators to examine the costs and benefits of having technology as a centerpiece of students’ educational experience. 

A resolution passed by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), among many other restrictions, banned the use of electronic devices for students below second grade and thereafter severely limited screentime for older students, including prohibiting “elementary and middle school student device use during passing periods, lunch, and recess with limited exceptions for teacher-approved school work.” 

This move away from technology, as well as a stated intent to have teachers lean into ”pen and paper assignments,” captures the dilemma faced by school leaders in weighing the point at which the negative impacts of technology begin to outweigh the educational value. There are rumblings throughout the state of California and in other states, including Utah, that reflect similar sentiments to those of the LAUSD.

The move responds to growing parent opposition to heavy screen time and puts L.A. Unified on the leading edge of the anti-screen movement in California — just as the district was when it banned students’ use of cellphones at school. Experts have linked excessive screen time to academic, physical and emotional harm, with the research focusing mainly on screen time outside of schoolwork — time students spend on phones and computers absorbed in gaming and scrolling through videos and social media.

www.latimes.com/…

The post Back to Books: A move toward reducing screentime in classrooms appeared first on Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.

For many years, cybersecurity has remained the top priority and number one concern for school districts across the country, with large gaps between districts’ data security needs and funding available to meet those needs. Challenges associated with cybersecurity were well understood, even where they could not be easily overcome. AI introduced a technology with which educational leaders were far less acquainted, but have more recently begun eagerly adopting. A whopping 96% of education technology leaders now view AI as having the potential to positively affect education.

CoSN’s 2026 State of Edtech report reveals a collision of these two major Edtech giants, with educators now facing the added data security risk of AI enabled cyberattacks, while still grappling with funding gaps to address increasing cyber insurance premiums, insufficient cybersecurity staffing, and the lack of a dedicated budget to address these issues. 

While some school districts are mitigating these risks by implementing procurement policies requiring vendors to provide product safety information before adoption, these types of policies are far from being the norm, leaving many, if not most districts exposed. 

Check out the full text of COSN’s report, U.S. State of EdTech 2026 linked here: https://www.cosn.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/U.S.-State-of-EdTech-2026.pdf 

Today’s education technology leaders are responsible not only for maintaining infrastructure, but also for supporting instructional practice, protecting student data, enabling innovation, and engaging families and communities around responsible technology use. Education technology leaders need to navigate a landscape that is ever-changing. In 2026 there is nearly ubiquitous 1:1 implementation at all grade levels and districts face community concerns about screen time.

This year’s report examines both emerging and long-standing issues, including artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, connectivity, staffing, procurement, and device management. Together, these findings help education technology leaders benchmark progress, inform district decision-making, and support policymakers and system leaders seeking to strengthen learning environments through the thoughtful use of technology.

www.cosn.org/…

The post The Worlds of AI and Cybersecurity Collide appeared first on Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.

This recognition highlights F3 Law’s continued commitment to fostering a workplace culture that supports its attorneys and professional staff while advancing its mission to serve schools and educational institutions.

U.S. News & World Report evaluates firms using an objective, data-driven methodology designed to assess how well organizations meet employee needs. The ranking considers key factors such as quality of pay and benefits, work-life balance, job stability, workplace comfort, belongingness, and opportunities for professional development.

“Being recognized by U.S. News as one of the best law firms to work for reflects the culture we’ve worked intentionally to build,” said Namita Brown, F3’s Managing Partner. “We believe that when our people feel supported, respected, and empowered, they can do their best work for our clients and the communities we serve.”

Founded in 2006, F3 Law has grown into a nationally recognized education law firm representing school districts, county offices of education, institutions of higher education and other education entities. The firm’s attorneys bring deep experience across all areas of education law, united by a shared commitment to improving outcomes for students and the institutions that serve them. F3 Law’s workplace culture emphasizes collaboration, mentorship, and purpose-driven work. Many attorneys and staff have backgrounds in public education, reinforcing the firm’s mission-driven approach and strong sense of community.

The U.S. News recognition further validates F3 Law’s ongoing investment in its people—through professional development, inclusive initiatives, and a focus on meaningful, impactful work. “As we continue to grow, our priority remains the same: creating an environment where talented professionals can thrive while making a difference,” added Namita.

The post F3 Law Recognized as One of the “Best Companies to Work For: Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report appeared first on Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.

The LLFI Mid-Sized 200 evaluates firms across the United States with approximately 50 to 150 attorneys and highlights those demonstrating sustained success in an increasingly competitive and rapidly evolving legal market. Compiled by Leopard Law and powered by the SurePoint Legal Insights platform (formerly Leopard Solutions), the index is based on objective, real-time data rather than subjective reputation, offering a uniquely rigorous view of law firm performance.

F3 Law’s No. 1 ranking places the firm at the very top of its peer group nationwide—an indication not only of strong recent performance, but of consistent, disciplined growth and operational stability over time. In a market where many firms experience volatility, this distinction signals that F3 Law has successfully built a model that is both resilient and scalable.

“This ranking reflects the collective efforts of our attorneys and business team, and the trust placed in us by our clients,” said Namita Brown, managing partner of F3 Law. “It affirms that our strategic focus, culture, and commitment to education and public service are translating into meaningful, measurable results.”

The Leopard Law Firm Index measures key indicators such as attorney headcount growth, retention, and overall firm momentum—factors that together provide a forward-looking assessment of organizational health. F3 Law’s top placement underscores the effectiveness of its long-term growth strategy and its ability to execute consistently in a dynamic legal landscape.

Beyond the ranking itself, this recognition highlights what differentiates F3 Law: a clear strategic vision, a strong and collaborative culture, and an unwavering commitment to clients.

As the legal industry continues to evolve, F3 Law’s position at the top of the LLFI Mid-Sized 200 demonstrates that it is not simply keeping pace—it is setting the standard.

The post F3 Law Takes Top Spot in 2025 Leopard Law Firm Index Mid-Sized 200 appeared first on Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.

In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (“US DOJ”) updated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) to establish Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)  2.1, Level AA as the technical standard for making public entities’ content of public-facing websites, mobile apps, and digital documents usable for people with visual, auditory, cognitive, and mobility disabilities.  Examples of public-facing content include newsletters, student/parent portals and governing board agendas. 

School districts serving a county or city with a population of 50,000 or more were initially required to have their websites and other public facing online tools updated to ensure compliance with the ADA no later than April 24, 2026.  For school districts serving counties or cities with populations of less than 50,000, compliance was initially due by April 26, 2027. To the extent a school district is an independent school district, WCAG 2.1, Level AA dictates using the population in the 2022 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (“SAIPE”).

One week before the first deadline, the US DOJ pre-filed an Interim Final Rule, extending the deadline for school districts with a population of 50,000 or more from April 24, 2026, to April 26, 2027, and those with a population under 50,000’s deadline extended from April 26, 2027 to April 26, 2028. It is anticipated that this Interim Final Rule will take effect on Monday, April 20, 2026.

To the extent you have questions or would like to discuss WCAG’s guidelines or this extension, please do not hesitate to reach out to your F3 attorney.

The post WCAG Deadlines Extended appeared first on Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.

If AB 2189, authored by Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove, becomes law, increased state attention and funding tied to its provisions could reshape resource allocation for special education across California. Districts that receive earmarked dollars or incentives may expand early intervention, therapeutic services, and assistive-technology deployments, narrowing disparities between well‑resourced and under‑resourced districts. Thoughtful implementation will be essential to ensure funds reach classroom supports and not just administrative compliance, and to measure outcomes that matter for students’ functional independence and post‑school success.

Policy changes in AB 2189 that adjust accountability, timelines, or procedural requirements for Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) could streamline service delivery but also raise capacity challenges. Shorter timelines or higher documentation standards can improve responsiveness and transparency if paired with investments in special‑education staffing, case management systems, and training. Without that parallel capacity building, districts risk increased due‑process disputes, teacher burnout, and inconsistent supports for students with the most complex needs.

The bill’s emphasis—whether on inclusion, family engagement, workforce development, or data systems—will drive where innovation occurs. New mandates for multi‑disciplinary collaboration, professional development, or interoperable data could accelerate evidence‑based practices and transitions to adulthood. Conversely, poorly specified mandates could shift focus to compliance rather than outcomes. Policymakers should prioritize clear implementation guidance, phased timelines, and stakeholder co‑design (families, educators, and advocacy groups) to translate AB 2189 into improved educational trajectories for students with disabilities.

New bill proposes reforming special education by empowering California families

As federal oversight of special education shrinks, California lawmakers are proposing to organize parents and students with disabilities and strengthen their voices at the state level, arguing that without them, no meaningful reform will take place.

Assembly Bill 2189, authored by Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove, won’t solve all the problems in special education — such as too few qualified teachers and state and federal funding that isn’t keeping pace — at least not directly. But supporters say the bill is crucial if California wants to tackle any of these thorny issues.

The post Impact of Pending California Legislation on Special Education appeared first on Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.