Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Public Law 108-446 included information on teacher credentialing, i.e., so that they may be considered "highly qualified." [27] [28] In providing FAPE, Public Law 108-446 also clarified that states also need to set targets for their students to meet and failure to do so brings federal sanctions, such as loss of funds. [27] [29]
A no vote on Prop 34. is a vote to keep rules governing California-based participants in the federal drug discount program the same. ... by federal law to use these drug company discounts in ...
e. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a piece of American legislation that ensures students with a disability are provided with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their individual needs. IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990.
Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. 142 (2023), [1] was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) can proceed without exhausting the administrative procedures of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA ...
California has passed a pair of bills meant to protect the digital likeness of actors and performers from artificial intelligence.. The two bills, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom Tuesday, are meant to ...
Consenting Adult Sex Bill; California State Legislature; Full name: An act to amend Section 12912 of the Education Code, to amend Sections 972 and 985 of the Evidence Code, and to amend Sections 220, 286, 287, 288a and 290 of, to add Section 286.5 to, and to repeal Sections 269a, 269b, 286.1 and 288b of, the Penal Code, relating to sexual offenses.
A new Biden administration rule will make more families eligible for subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Covered California estimates that more than 600,000 Californians ...
The California Supreme Court has repeatedly "interpreted the [law] as protecting classes other than those listed on its face". [6] For example, even prior to the 2005 addition of sexual orientation to the law's list of covered classes, the Unruh Act had been "construed as protecting gays and lesbians from arbitrary discrimination", [6] such as in the case of Rolon v.