South Dakota

The Only Write-Off You Can’t Take: Missing the April 15 Deadline

Every spring in South Dakota, April 15 means more than taxes.  For school administrators, it is also contract season.  South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 13-43 lays out how teacher contracts work, when notices must be given, and what rights attach after a teacher has been employed for a certain period of time.  Understanding those rules and how they differ from administrator contracts is essential to avoiding unpleasant surprises.

SDCL 13-43-6.3 governs the nonrenewal of teacher contracts.  For teachers who have not yet completed four consecutive terms of employment in the same district, often referred to as probationary or nontenured teachers, the school board has broad discretion to renew or not renew a contract.  No statutory “cause” is required at that stage.  However, just because a teacher is considered probationary/nontenured does not mean that the requirement to provide notice is optional.  These teachers must still receive timely written notice of nonrenewal by April 15.  Once a teacher reaches the fourth consecutive term, continuing contract (i.e. tenure) rights come into play.  At that point, nonrenewal must be based on statutory grounds and follow required procedures, including proper notice and the opportunity for a hearing.  Under SDCL 13-43-6.3, written notice of a recommendation to not renew a tenured teacher’s contract must be provided on or before April 15.  

Administrator contracts operate differently.  The continuing contract framework in chapter 13-43 is designed for teachers, not administrators.  Principals, superintendents, and other administrators do not acquire statutory continuing contract rights after four years.  There is no tenure-like protection built into SDCL 13-43-6.3 for administrators.  Instead, administrators’ rights are defined by the terms of their individual contracts and applicable board policies.  An administrator is not “nonrenewed” in the same statutory sense as a teacher; rather, the contract simply expires according to its terms unless renewed.  If a board wishes to end or decline to extend an administrator’s contract, the governing document is the contract itself, not the teacher continuing contract statutes.  If you have not issued administrator contracts for the 2026-27 school year, now is a great time to have them reviewed by legal counsel to ensure they do not grant any tenure rights in favor of administrators that are neither required nor intended.  We also offer standard principal, superintendent, business manager, and administrator contracts, in addition to teacher contracts. 

If you have any questions about this process and would like to walk through your administrator or teacher contracts, please reach out to us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

If I Could Turn Back Time, I Would Check More Off My To Do List?

The year is 1989.  Cher releases this hit.  Many of our school administrators were baby teachers (or maybe literal babies).  The words of Cher echo into our summer to-do lists…if I could turn back time.  With the never-ending list of school building projects, end of fiscal year reporting, and the preparation for a new cadre of staff, it is easy to let yearly tasks escape the forefront.  As you prepare for the FY2025 year, here are a few items to remember:

Title IX: The new regs are currently set to go into effect August 1, 2024.  However, two federal district courts have issued temporary injunctions preventing the new regs from going into effect in their states, and there is a challenge to the new regulations pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  Districts should monitor the Eighth Circuit litigation closely (we’ll keep you up to date with our blog) and be proactive and update board policy prior to this date.  Additionally, the new regulations require all staff training annually and specific training for the Title IX team (coordinator, investigator, decision-maker, appellate decision-maker).  Regardless of what happens with the litigation, the lawsuits do not not mean you shouldn't train. Every Title IX team needs annual training on properly handling civil rights cases, and folks knowledgeable about what happens behind the scenes at OCR are predicting that the federal government will scrutinize any school district, college, or university whose Title IX Coordinator hasn't received significant training on the new rules this summer.  SASD is offering in-person Title IX team training.  Additionally, KSB School Law has on-demand training videos for all staff.  More information is available here.

Key Required Notices for Student Handbooks:  Principals should be reviewing student handbooks to ensure the following are contained in the materials: notice of non-discrimination, FERPA rights, Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment information, Child Nutrition Programs required information, notice of policy on opting out of assessments as required by ESSA, and asbestos management plan. 

Key Required Notices for Posting: Business managers should be verifying the most recent FLSA, FMLA, USERRA, Employee Polygraph Protection Act, Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and Discrimination/Equal Employment Opportunity posters are in locations visible to staff.  More information is available here.  Also, there are new per diem travel rates which are effective July 1, 2024 available here.  

Staff In-services: With our calendars already filling up, now is the time to book staff in-services with KSB School Law for the 2024-2025 calendar.  Potential staff in-service topics include: Section 504 compliance, Special Education and IDEA compliance, professionalism/ethics, mandatory child abuse reporting, digital citizenship for teachers/staff social media usage, FERPA, and legal hot topics.  We also can facilitate trainings over Zoom, if needed. 

July Annual Meeting Requirements: Many boards designate the law firms(s) that they will work with during the next calendar year.  There is no legal limitation on the number of law firms a board may designate so boards can authorize more than one firm.  While such action is not technically required, it does clarify a school’s authority to work with legal counsel.  A sample board agenda and motion for designating a law firm is available here.  

The Board should also designate a bank, elect officers, have newly elected board members take an oath, administer the oath to the business manager, and designate a legal newspaper.  If you are a small district, remember to review the amended law regarding legal newspapers at SDCL 17-2-2.2 which was a result of SB 75.

As always, do not hesitate to reach out to the KSB crew at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com with any questions or to book a staff in-service. 

Your Title IX Training Plan: the Tortured Administrators’ Department

You know from our blog last week that the Biden administration has released its long-awaited Title IX regulations, updating the law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools.   These regulations were set by the feds to go into effect on August 1, 2024.  

The first of what could be many legal challenges to the regulations has already been filed in court, which was joined by Governor Noem and Attorney General Jackley.  We’re also aware that Secretary Graves has issued guidance to schools to keep this litigation in mind when making policy decisions. We agree that schools should keep an eye on how those lawsuits progress, but there are many reasons to continue moving forward with your plans to implement the new regulations even with these lawsuits pending. Refusing to implement the new regulations could cause risk for schools if the litigation is unsuccessful, and we believe there are ways schools can structure their policies so as to comply with both state law and the new regulations.  We’ll unpack the status of the litigation and the details of these regulations at our Title IX Webinar on June 25.  

But we know you’re already thinking about the most serious headache for school administrators: how do we train everyone before August 1? The new regulations require that all school employees, including board members and volunteers, be trained annually on their obligations to identify, report, and respond to allegations of sex discrimination.  Additionally all members of your school’s Title IX team will require updated training on the new regulations (and annual training moving forward).

KSB’s In Person Title IX Training 

All Staff Training

One of the KSB lawyers will be delighted to come to your school this fall to conduct a basic "all employee" training for 60-90 minutes, which we will customize for each school. We can do just the required Title IX training or add in other staff inservice topics, depending upon the length of time.

Title IX Team Training

We would also love to come train your Title IX Team in person.  This training would include anyone who will be involved in responding to Title IX allegations.  Once trained they will be able to serve on any role of the Title IX Team (Title IX Coordinator, Investigator/Decision-Maker/Informal Resolution Officer/Appellate Decision-Maker.   Last time around, many school districts got together with other area administrators and got trained as a group.  We have pricing that will encourage that collaboration.   We will also have discounted pricing available for ESUs who want to offer this training to their member school districts in person.  This training will be available on a first come, first serve basis.

Regional Trainings

We are working with various state organizations with efforts to set up in person regional training.  We will send out more details on those trainings as they are available, but we are generally planning for three trainings across the state toward the end of July. 

KSB’s Video On-Demand Title IX Resources 

On-Demand All Staff Training 

KSB will bring your staff up to speed so they can perform their duties to the best of their ability and with fidelity to the law.  Our portal offers a simple training video that you can have each employee, board member, and volunteer watch on demand.  Our system will also allow the district administrator to obtain a report to track who has watched the video.  Each employee will also receive a certificate of completion, which then can be transferred to future employers as well.  This system will also allow new hires during the 2024-25 school year to receive the same training that their peers received at the beginning of the school year. 

Title IX Team Training

We are designing similar on-demand training for your Title IX Team.  Anyone who will be involved in responding to Title IX allegations can participate in this training and will then be able to serve on any role of the Title IX Team.   Again, each administrator will receive a certificate of completion, the district will be able to obtain a report to see the progress of each person assigned to take the training.  

These on-demand training videos will be available to view beginning July 15th.  We will provide the individual in your district responsible for tracking training a link with instructions on how to obtain the records.

March Madness: South Dakota Legislative Update and Ed Update

Name a better season in the country than March Madness?  The time we collectively take bets on nineteen year old youths who are majoring in communications.  While March Madness might have us all glued to the television and regularly refreshing our bracket rankings, let’s not forget the madness, or lack thereof, that occurred this South Dakota legislative session.  For the most part, this legislative session was a quiet one.  Below are the bills that will have the greatest impact on schools. 

HB 1020: This bill amends the previous law regarding suicide awareness and prevention training.  Prior to employment, and every five years after employment, certified employees (teachers and administrators) must complete a youth suicide awareness and prevention training.  The SDDOE will make a list of approved training available to schools.

HB 1055: This bill increases the threshold for a political subdivision, like a school district, to sell surplus property through a private or public sale without notice.  The amount was modified from $500 to $2,500.

HB 1187: This bill creates a one-year career and technical education educator permit.  The bill allows for applicants to apply if they have an associates of applied science degree or at least 2,000 hours of work experience in a related CTE field.  

HB 1197: This bill requires school district computers to be equipped with software to limit a student’s access to obscene matter or materials (hopefully all schools already have this technology in place given existing obligations like COPPA, CIPA, and e-Rate rules). Additionally, boards must adopt a policy regarding the measures to restrict minors from accessing obscene materials by January 1, 2025.  For our KSB policy subscribers, we will include a policy as part of our annual updates. 

HB 1220: This bill reduces  the time in which a party may appeal the decision of a hearing officer in a  special education due process hearing to thirty days.  The appeal period was originally ninety days.  

SB 75: This bill defines the requirements for a legal newspaper.  A legal newspaper must have a minimum paid circulation of at least two hundred or meet additional requirements for online subscribers.  

SB 127: The teacher compensation bill. TLDR; we have heard from many business managers the frustrations of this bill. 

SB 203:  This bill expands those who may carry a firearm on school premises to include: an individual who is 21 or older, holds an enhanced permit to carry a concealed pistol, and has written permission from “the principal of the school or other person who has general control and supervision of the building or grounds.”  KSB policy subscribers should be on the lookout for a policy regarding this change during our annual updates. 

SB 212: This bill authorizes  the school district to pay certain bills prior to the school board meeting if the board approves the vendor and the maximum amount of payment.

Good news, if you stuck with us through this long blog post, there is an additional legal update.  The SDDOE recently updated the open enrollment form.  As you will notice, there is no longer a reference to a student’s disability and IEP.  School administrators - we will be issuing guidance in the future as to what this change means for schools.  As always, if you have any questions regarding school law or legislation, shoot us an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com

P.S. Go UConn Huskies!  March Madness bets and predictions may also be submitted to ksb@ksbschoollaw.com 

Because I Got High: Medical Marijuana and the Workplace

Who can forget the year 2020?  We had the COVID-19 pandemic, the Harvey Weinstein verdict, the death of NBA star Kobe Bryant, and oh yea - in South Dakota, we had Initiated Measure 26 pass which legalized medical cannabis.  (Talk about a lot of big things happening!)  Initiated Measure 26 became codified in state law at SDCL 35-20G.  This new law impacted school districts in the state as districts passed policies addressing the use of medical marijuana, both for students and staff.  One concern we regularly hear in our office relates to the use of medical marijuana by staff.  Legally, what, if anything, can the school district regulate?  Here are the top questions we receive.

Does a staff member have to disclose to administration if the staff member has a medical marijuana card?

A school may ask on an employment application if the staff member has a medical marijuana card.  If the employee does not answer truthfully, that can be grounds for termination.  However, South Dakota law states: “A cardholder may not be refused enrollment by a school or a lease by a landlord, or otherwise be penalized by a school or landlord solely for the person's status as a cardholder, unless failing to do so would violate federal law or regulations or cause the school or landlord to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or regulation.”  (emphasis added). 

What can an administrator do if the administrator suspects a school employee is high or impaired at school?

If an administrator has reason to suspect a staff member is high or intoxicated, the administrator can request the staff member report to a clinic or hospital to receive a drug test.  If the staff member refuses such a request, the administrator can discipline the staff member for insubordination.

Should the district have a provision in the staff handbook regarding medical marijuana?

Yes, districts should review their staff handbooks and consider including a provision regarding medical marijuana.

Is medical marijuana a reasonable accommodation under the ADAAA?

Because medical marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law, there is no duty to provide an accommodation as the ADAAA does not apply. 

What about safety sensitive positions? (Such as those driving students, bus drivers, etc.)

For those individuals such as bus drivers, the U.S. Department of Transportation's rules apply regarding drug testing.  Those individuals must pass drug tests regardless of the South Dakota law allowing medical marijuana. 

If you have questions about employment law, please contact us at (402) 804-8000 or send everyone an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

Partial Enrollment, Whole Confusion: Partial Enrollment of Homeschool Kids in South Dakota

Two years ago, the South Dakota legislature enacted substantial changes to the way public schools handle students who choose to homeschool.  If you’re unaware of this, we hope you can make some room for us under that rock you’ve been living under as it must be a delightful place!

When the new rules were first implemented, many educators and school attorneys in the state discussed how there could be unforeseen consequences to these rules, and much of the focus surrounded how activity participation for homeschool students would play out.  While those questions have hardly subsided, recently we’ve been receiving more questions regarding homeschool students who qualify for special education services who wish to partially enroll in a public school. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Act requires states to pass regulations that comply with its requirements, which South Dakota has done in ARSD 24:05.  The Department of Education has taken the position that the IDEA and South Dakota’s regulations require only that public schools evaluate non-enrolled students in their district for special education and special education related services and make an offer of a free and appropriate public education.  However, the Department has stated that schools do not need to offer those services if the student does not enroll in the school district.  The Department’s guidance can be viewed here. 

So what happens when a student qualifies for services, and parents wish to enroll but only partially?  We would recommend schools reach out to their attorney on the subject, but remember that a “free and appropriate public education” is not a la carte.  Think of a school that has made an offer of FAPE to a student subsisting of services A, B, and C.  However, parents only wish to receive service C and enroll partially.  In this scenario, schools should analyze whether complying with such a request would be denying that student FAPE under the IDEA (even if it’s what parents request – remember schools’ obligation under the IDEA is to provide the student with FAPE, not to give the student what the parents select).  Although we work closely with the Department of Education on special education matters, schools should be cautious about placing too much weight on informal statements from the Department.  These statements are not binding against  a parent in a due process hearing or in federal court. 

If you are interested in hearing more about this subject, KSB recently recorded a webinar touching on the subject as well as other enrollment issues.  We have received so many questions about partial enrollment of special education students, we have decided to allow all of our blog subscribers to access this webinar for free here! 

If you are interested in more KSB webinars, you can sign up for our monthly series or special education series here as well.  If you have specific questions about partial enrollment issues or about any other legal issue that your school district is facing, feel free to reach out to any of the KSB attorneys – Tyler, Sara, Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady or Jordan. 

SOUTH DAKOTA WEBINARS FOR 23-24

We’ve set the topics and dates for the South Dakota Webinars in 23-24. Join us for 90’s inspired pop song themes as we cruise through (while reliving the best decade of music) school law related topics. Last year KSB offered a series on a monthly basis.   We have been overwhelmed by your positive response!  Back by popular demand, these short webinars focus each month on a key topic that we see administrators struggle with -- no matter how experienced they may be.  These sessions are be short, practical and to-the-point and are intended to encourage open question time for live participants.  We are offering sessions. One on hot topics and one on special education. These webinars will be presented live via Zoom, and also recorded, so you can watch them later if you have a conflict or go back to the recording and any materials for a refresher. 

Click below for cost, dates and topics!

HOT TOPICS WEBINAR SERIES

SPECIAL EDUCATION SERIES

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

Cheers to Peace, Quiet, and Sanity in FY 2024: Happy New (Fiscal) Year!

While there is no fancy ball drop or confetti to ring in the new fiscal year, many school administrators are diligently preparing for their July annual (reorganization) meeting.  Many have asked us about board actions required or typically taken at the first meeting of the new fiscal year, so we have prepared a short list of frequently-asked questions for your reference. 

Designating a Bank

SDCL 13-8-10 requires boards of education to designate the district’s depository (bank) or depositories.  Specifically, SDCL 13-16-5 states that the board shall “by resolution duly adopted at any annual, regular, or special meeting designate any bank or banks within the state as depositories for the funds or any part or parts of the funds of the district.”  Prior to this meeting, it is wise for school administrators to review the depository information released by the Department of Legislative Audit to determine under-collateralized banks, if applicable.  This information is accessible here.

Election of Officers

SDCL 13-8-10 also requires the Board to elect a president and vice president “from its membership” who will “serve until the next annual meeting.”  We recommend reviewing your school board policy on the methodology for board officer voting. 

What Do We Do About Ties?

A related question for the July meeting each year is how to deal with ties for officer elections.  Election of the president and vice president is required by statute, but there is no statutory process for breaking the tie.  We encourage you to review your policies to see if they include a method to break any officer election ties.  Boards that have adopted KSB’s Policy 2002 likely have approved one of the methods for breaking ties so that you do not have dozens of failed motions or tie votes.  

Tell Us About This Oath of Office

SDCL 13-8-14 requires newly elected members of the Board to take and subscribe “to an oath or affirmation to support the laws and Constitution of the United States and the State of South Dakota and to faithfully perform the duties of school board membership . . ..”  Additionally, SDCL 13-8-15 provides that the oaths will be filed in the office of the business manager with the exception of the business manager’s oath which will be filed with the county auditor.  The oaths only need to be completed once, upon the induction of the new board members and the hiring of a new business manager.  The statute also empowers both business managers and board presidents to administer oaths.  

What Else Is Legally Required at the July Annual Meeting? 

The Board must also “designate the legal newspaper to be used for publishing all official notices and proceedings.” 

Designating a Law Firm

Many boards designate the law firms(s) that they will work with during the next calendar year.  There is no legal limitation on the number of law firms a board may designate so boards can authorize more than one firm.  While such action is not technically required, it does clarify a school’s authority to work with legal counsel.  A sample board agenda and motion for designating a law firm is available here.

We hope this information will help you prepare for your July meetings.  If you have any questions about your July meetings, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or (402) 804-8000. 


“An Ounce of Prevention, is Worth a Pound of Cure:” Required Staff Trainings

Ahh, the joys of summer break.  Nothing is sweeter to administrators’ ears than the silence of the school building in summer.  Before you turn on your autoresponder, blend up a pitcher of pina coladas and head to the beach for the summer, now is an excellent time to review mandatory and recommended staff trainings and place them on the district’s calendar for when your staff returns this fall. 

MANDATORY TRAININGS

Title IX.  As of August 14, 2020, the members of your Title IX Team (i.e., Title IX Coordinator, Investigator, Decision-Maker, Appellate Decision-Maker, and Informal Resolution Facilitator) must all receive specific Title IX training.  If that hasn’t been completed—or if you have a new member to your Title IX Team who has not received that training—that training must occur as soon as possible.  As you have most likely heard us say before, we strongly recommend that all district employees and board members also receive basic Title IX training, with an emphasis on the legal definitions of sexual harassment and how to report it to the appropriate people.  We anticipate the new federal regulations will require ALL staff receive training.  While you are enjoying your well-deserved summer break, the KSB attorneys will monitor the Title IX situation and will let everyone know what the final regulations require when they are published.   

Child Find Obligations/Section 504/MTSS/PBIS.  The IDEA and South Dakota Administrative Rules require training for “appropriate” staff to be able to carry out the district’s “child find” obligations under state and federal law.  These obligations also apply to Section 504.  Any presentation about MTSS and PBIS should also remind staff of ongoing child find obligations regardless of the tiered intervention system your district uses.

Suicide Awareness and Prevention. All teachers, administrators, and other educational professions must receive one hour of suicide awareness and prevention training in order to be issued an initial certificate and a renewal certificate as required by SDCL 13-42-71.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED TRAININGS

Sex Harassment and Discrimination. Staff should, at a minimum, know where to locate your policy and handbook provisions on antidiscrimination based on sex.  This includes your sex harassment policy, complaint procedure, and grievance procedure (for certified staff).  They should also understand who your Title IX coordinator is and how that person can be contacted.  That will be in your nondiscrimination notices, but reviewing it with staff is a good idea.  Ideally, you would review prohibited conduct.

Section 504 and ADA.  Staff have a right to be accommodated if they have a disability.  The school must provide reasonable accommodations to allow the employee to perform the essential functions of their positions.  You should, at a minimum, cover your process for staff requesting accommodations, reporting workplace injuries, and your complaint and grievance procedures in the context of a staff member with a disability.  

Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting.  South Dakota statute 26-8A-3 requires teachers and school counselors to report child abuse when the employee “who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child under the age of eighteen has been abused or neglected.”  You should train on this obligation and on your district’s mandatory reporting policy and procedures.

Restraint and Seclusion.  Under SDCL 13-32-20, each district must have a restraint and seclusion policy.  We recommend reviewing it and your practices with your staff.  

Professionalism and SD Administrative Rule Chapter 24:08:03.  You should review your board’s expectations for professionalism by way of policies such as appropriate relationships, technology use, and others.  This should include a review of certified staff conduct rules laid out in South Dakota Administrative Rules Code of Professional Ethics.  Ideally staff will certify that they have read Chapter 24:08:03 each year.

STUDENT ASSEMBLIES

Digital Citizenship Assembly (AKA “Digcit”).  The calendars are already filling up for the fall.  We recommend reaching out to book your student digcit assemblies now.  As a quick overview, Digcit is an hour-long assembly focused on educating students about sexting, inappropriate pictures, cyberbullying and the related consequences, both school based and criminal.  All assemblies are sprinkled with the usual KSB sass and humor.  Typically, the sessions are separated into middle school or junior high and high school.

UPCOMING SUMMER SPECIAL EDUCATION TRAINING 

If you just can’t get enough special education training, there is an excellent national conference close to home this summer.  The Midwest Educational Leadership Conference will be held June 19-21 in beautiful Breckenridge, Colorado.  The speakers include KSB School Law’s own Karen Haase.  If you would like more information or to sign up, just click here.  

If you have any questions about trainings or would like to schedule the KSB crew to conduct a staff in-service or Digcit, please feel free to contact Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler or Sara at (402) 804-8000, or send everyone an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.    

I Need Money, Not a Job: Hiring High School Workers for the Summer

Detasseling.  Babysitting.  Picking Rocks.  Bag boy at the local grocery store.  Working as summer help at the school?  We all remember our first jobs.  The glory of 5:30 AM bus rides to wet cornfields to detassel corn.  A true midwest gift to teenagers 13 through 18 trying to earn a few bucks.  Recently, we have received an uptick in calls from school administrators who are looking to fill temporary custodial positions with high school workers during the summer months.  High school students may be an excellent solution for schools during the three months of summer.  However, there are certain considerations South Dakota school administrators should review when hiring high school workers.

Minimum Age and Wage

South Dakota law provides that no minor under the age of 14 may be employed.  SDCL 60-12-1.  Additionally, minors who are 14 and 15 are limited to working no more than eight hours a day and no more than forty hours a week.  SDCL 60-12-2.  School districts are also required to pay minimum wages as established by SDCL 60-11-3.  The 2023 South Dakota minimum wage is $10.80 per hour.

Driving “On-The-Job” 

Minors under 17 may not drive on public roadways as part of the minor’s job.  A 17 year old may drive on public roadways as part of the 17 year old’s job if the following requirements are met: 1) the driving occurs during daylight hours, 2) the 17 year old holds a valid driver’s license, 3) the driver has completed a driver’s education course, 4) the driver has no record of any moving violation at the time of hire, 5) the vehicle does not exceed 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, and 6) the vehicle has seat belts for the driver.  Additionally, driving may not include driving more than a 30 mile radius beyond the work site and transporting more than three passengers.

Lawn Mowing

One area we often see schools use minors for is mowing the school grounds.  Be aware that the FLSA limits 14 and 15 year olds from certain activities.  For example, 14 and 15 year olds may help with “clean-up work and grounds maintenance,” but they may not “use power-driven mowers, cutters, and trimmers.”  See a complete list of limitations here.  If your high school workers are 16 or older, the limitations for work are substantially removed.

Conclusion  

If you have any questions about hiring minors, please feel free to contact Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler or Sara at (402) 804-8000, or send everyone an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

Why Are You So Obsessed With Me? Application of “Sunshine Laws” to Local School Boards

“So oh oh, so oh oh,” sings Bobby.  O wait, you are here for a blog post and not a visual reminder of what Bobby sings every day on his commute?  Just as the infamous Mariah Carey belts out these lines in her classic hit, board members might be feeling this pressure from public scrutiny lately.  Part of the scrutiny stems from state “Sunshine  laws” (like the Nebraska Open Meetings Act and the South Dakota open meetings laws) which inherently (and with good public policy reasoning) safeguard the public’s access to meetings and right to information.  Here are a few common questions and areas of concern which lead to potential open meetings violations.

1. Question: I am the superintendent.  Can I send an e-mail to all the board members simultaneously without a violation?

Answer: This makes us nervous!   Under the Nebraska Open Meetings Act, a meeting is defined as “all regular, special, or called meetings, formal or informal, of any public body for the purposes of briefing, discussion of public business, formation of tentative policy, or the taking of any action of the public body.”   Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1409.  Similarly, South Dakota law defines an official meeting of a public body to be “any meeting of a quorum of a public body at which official business of the public body is discussed or decided, or public policy is formulated, whether in person or by means of teleconference.”  SDCL 1-25-1.  If a board member hits “reply all” to an e-mail message, a violation of the open meetings law almost certainly occurred.  If a superintendent would like to send an email to all of the board members, the better practice is for the superintendent to send an email to himself or herself with the board members blind copied (BCC’d) on the email so as to avoid the dreaded “Reply All.”

2. Question: I am the board president.  Are there ramifications if I text another board member during a board meeting? 

Answer: Yes.  This is a violation of open meetings laws.  Board members cannot text each other during the school board meeting about school business.  The same would be true about any other form of communication such as social media.  

3. Question: I am the board president.  What limits, if any, can I place on public comment?

Answer: In Nebraska, the public is guaranteed the right to attend and speak at meetings of a public body.  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1412.  The right of the public to provide input may be limited or prohibited at certain meetings so long as it is not forbidden at all meetings, and the public body may require a member of the public to identify themselves as a condition to addressing the body.  The Nebraska Attorney General has provided guidance that allowing public comment at least quarterly is sufficient to comply with the Act.  

In South Dakota, the public body is required to reserve time for public comment at regularly scheduled meetings.  SDCL § 1-25-1.  The public body may exercise discretion in limiting public comment but may not eliminate any public comment.  Senate Bill 162 which was signed by the Governor in February 2023 will change the law to require public comment at every official meeting with several exceptions.  

Reasonable and necessary boundaries can be placed on public comment in both Nebraska and South Dakota.  For example, uniform time limits can be placed on speakers such as two or three minutes per speaker.  Additionally, a board president has the discretion to stop speech or other conduct that the board president reasonably perceives to be or imminently threatens to cause a disruption of the orderly and fair progress of the meeting.  Similarly, swearing or profanity can be prohibited. 

4. Question: I am a board president.  Can I limit public comment criticizing school officials? 

Answer: In an effort to protect the reputation, privacy, and due process rights of school officials and employees, some school boards have adopted policies or practices of prohibiting citizens from publicly criticizing school officials or employees in open school board meetings.  These policies are typically deemed unlawful by the courts.  Therefore, citizens who speak critically of school employees must be allowed to do so unless their comments, coupled with other behavior, clearly threaten to disrupt the meeting.  To put it simply, each time the board provides the public the opportunity for public comment, it must permit the public to provide comment on any subject.  

If you have any questions about open meetings laws, please feel free to contact Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler or Sara at (402) 804-8000, or send everyone an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

Look What You Made Me Do: SDDOE Says Homeschoolers Can Open Enroll for Sports Alone!

Since the South Dakota legislature changed the rules regarding alternative instruction in the 2021 legislative session, activity participation is one of the most common questions we receive.  To what extent can alternative instruction students participate in activities in districts other than the one in which they reside?  The Department of Education decided this week to put its oar into the water on this issue.  According to the Department, homeschool students can only be denied open enrollment due to capacity, even if the student outright states they will only participate in sports and won’t enroll in any classes. 

The DOE memorandum stated that it was a response to a joint opinion issued by the Associated School Boards of South Dakota (ASBSD), the School Administrators of South Dakota (SASD), and the South Dakota Council of School Attorneys.  This joint statement took the position that students do not have a right under state law to participate in activities in a school other than the one in which they reside, regardless of enrollment status.  The statement relied mostly on SDCL 13-28-43 which governs open enrollment applications, and states that an approved open enrollment application “obligates the student to attend school in the non-resident district or desired school during the school year[.]”  The opinion also noted South Dakota’s statute regarding extracurricular participation, which compels schools to allow for participation for “a child being provided alternative instruction pursuant to SDCL 13-27-3 within the district in which the child resides.”

The DOE’s memorandum does not discuss these statutory provisions.  Instead, it asserts that the only reason a school can deny an open enrollment request is pursuant to the capacity restrictions of SDCL 13-28-44 (e.g. “our sixth grade section is already full, we can’t accept you.”).  DOE goes one step further in their memo by asserting this has been their position since the new laws went into effect.  The memo also includes fine arts as an option for nonresident homeschool students but doesn’t address how credit issuance would function in those circumstances. 
We’ll be monitoring this situation as it progresses, but we recommend school administrators reach out to their school attorney to discuss how their district wants to approach this issue. Please reach out to Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler or Sara with any questions or send us all an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com

“I Gotta Go Back, Back, Back To School Again” . . . A Checklist for South Dakota Business Managers

[Please hum the tune of the song from Grease 2 for a healthy dose of nostalgia while reading this post.]

The supplies have been delivered, the school is clean, all staff contracts are filled (hopefully), and business managers are prepping for the influx of activities that occur in August.  With the many activities business managers coordinate, we wanted to help you process your tasks with a checklist.  We know nothing brings more joy to a business manager’s type-A heart than a checklist!  Here is a list of the items school attorneys want you to complete  to help you start the school year prepared.  

  • Ensure your annual report is submitted and approved by the DOE before August 30. 

Statute sets the deadline as July 31, but it allows for flexibility until August 30.  For more information, see SDCL 13-8-47.

  • Ensure your SNP and FFVP (if applicable) iCAN applications are submitted by August 19, 2022 for FY23.

  • Discuss with district administrators possible trainings for staff. 

Consider the following: 

  • Title IX - Ensure the Title IX team has been trained, including any new team members.  As a note, the new proposed regulations include required training for ALL K-12 staff, so this checklist may need to be updated once those new regulations become final. 

  • Suicide Awareness and Prevention Training - South Dakota law has a 1 hour requirement of training for all teachers, administrators and other education professionals who are seeking a new certificate or a certificate of renewal.

  • Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting

  • Legal Updates - This can include topics such as teacher free speech, student free speech, student searches and seizures, special education law.

  • Staff Use of Social Media

  • Update personnel files for new hires.

  • W-4 - Reminder, you cannot help an employee complete the W-4 form.  You can direct them to the IRS website for the withholding estimate calculator or encourage them to speak with a tax professional.

  • I-9 - This form must be completed within three days of hiring and should be kept separately from the personnel file.

  • Criminal Background Check - SD law requires each person over 18 years of age hired by a school district to submit to a background check.  See SDCL 13-10-12 for more information. 

  • COBRA initial notice - This notice must be given to covered  employees and their spouse (if applicable) within the first 90 days following coverage under the health plan.

  • SDRS Forms: E-1, E-5, E-5A (if applicable)

  • Enrollment Forms (examples): health insurance, dental, vision, 403(b), 457(b), AFLAC, Heritage Life, etc.

  • Other Forms to Consider: Agreement to Accept Compensatory Time Off in Lieu of Overtime, direct deposit form, acknowledgment of receipt of staff handbook, etc. 

  • Check on your teachers’ certificate renewals on Teacher 411

SDCL 13-42-1.2 states: “No person may draw wages as a teacher, administrator, or other educational professional in any public school or other accredited school who does not have a valid certificate.”  Make sure you verify all renewals have been completed prior to the September payroll and contact your school’s attorney if there are any questions.

  • Consider budget adoption and the levy request. 

SDCL 13-11-2 provides that: “Before October first every school board shall approve a budget for the anticipated obligations of each fund, except trust and agency funds, for the school fiscal year.” 

  • Make sure your labor law posters are up. 

In South Dakota, the following posters must be rightly displayed in an easily-viewed area in each workplace location: 

  • Reemployment Assistance Employee Notification Poster

  • Safety on the Job Posting Requirement

  • Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA)

  • Employees Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA)

  • Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC)

  • Job Safety and Health Protection (OSHA)

  • Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

  • Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)

  • Update the district’s driver’s list through the district’s insurance provider to include new staff members who will be using district vehicles and remove old staff members. 

This is a good time to review your staff driving policy which should be included in your staff handbook.  Many insurance companies, such as EMC, recommend such a policy. 

If you have any questions or would like to schedule a staff training on legal updates or Title IX, please don’t hesitate to call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler or Sara at (402) 804-8000, or send us all an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

What’s the Protocol? Parental Requests for Testing Protocols From Special Education Evaluations

We frequently get questions about the rights of parents of special education students to access the prompts, protocols and raw testing data produced by a special education evaluation.  These requests raise concerns that seem much broader than one student’s evaluation; the confidentiality and security of testing protocols is stressed as an essential condition of the test’s continued integrity and validity.  And what about copyright?  Despite these concerns, does the parent have a right to access the protocol?  Does the parent have a right to copy the protocol? Before the assessment is administered, the answer is no; access to testing protocols at that time would undermine the evaluation’s validity. After, the evaluation is complete, though, it depends. . .

Right to Access Education Records

Under both state and federal law, parents have the right to access and inspect the education records maintained regarding their student.  Education records are generally defined as “records, files, documents, and other materials” that “contain information directly related to a student” and are “maintained by an education agency or institution.”  20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4). Similarly, with respect to the records of special education students, the IDEA incorporates this same definition. 

Consequently, whether parents have a right to access and inspect testing protocols under FERPA is dependent upon whether those protocols “contain information directly related to a student” and are “maintained by an education agency or institution.”  In Nebraska, parents have a right to copies of any education records, whereas in South Dakota parents would, at most, have the ability to inspect the records.

If a student’s identifying information and answers are being “maintained” – as that term is defined by district policy – the testing protocols are education records. “A test protocol or question booklet which is separate from the sheet on which a student records answers and which is not personally identifiable to the student would not be a part of his or her ‘education records.’" Letter to Shuster, 108 LRP 2302 (OSEP 2007).

Parental Participation Rights

Even if testing protocols are kept separately from a student’s personally identifiable information (PII) or are not “maintained” by a school district, parents may still have a right to access those protocols in whole or in part in order to understand their student’s records and evaluative results.  

According to the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP):

Part B and FERPA provide that an educational agency or institution shall respond to reasonable requests for explanations and interpretations of education records. Accordingly, if a school were to maintain a copy of a student's test answer sheet (an ‘education record’), the parent would have a right under . . . FERPA to request an explanation and interpretation of the record. The explanation and interpretation by the school could entail showing the parent the test question booklet, reading the questions to the parent, or providing an interpretation for the response in some other adequate manner that would inform the parent.

Id. (Internal citations omitted). 

As a result, if you receive a request for testing protocols it is possible that some or all of that protocol must be provided in an appropriate form.  Ultimately, it depends on what information is necessary and appropriate to explain the student’s education records and facilitate meaningful parental participation.  See, e.g., McKinney Indep. Sch. Dist., 54 IDELR 303 (SEA TX 2010).

But What About Copyright Protections?

I know . . . every time you want to do something fun, we here at KSB stand ready with the Copyright Act of 1976 to tell you to stop. Finally, we’ve come across a scenario where copyright protections seem like they should help you avoid disclosing sensitive testing protocols. Unfortunately, though, this probably isn’t the case.

With respect to requests for records under the IDEA and FERPA, the Department of Education has noted that “federal copyright law generally should not be implicated” because the requests “generally do not require the distribution of copies of an education record, but rather parental access to inspect and review.”  However, unlike FERPA and the IDEA, some states like Nebraska provide that parents also have a right to copies of education records. 

While Nebraska courts have not yet addressed the issue, at least one court has indicated that providing copies of testing protocol that qualify as education records, as required by section 79-2,104, is a permissive “fair use” of the copyrighted materials. See Newport-Mesa Unified Sch. Dist. v. State of Calif. Dep’t of Educ., et. al., 371 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (C.D. Cal. 2005). 

But I Thought Karen Said. . . 

I know. . . I know.  Sometimes it only takes 15 years to convince Karen she could be a little less aggressive. But, in fairness, the extent to which parents are entitled to access to testing protocols and raw responses is truly a fact-dependent inquiry.  In a lot of cases, the evaluative report and other information supplemented by the evaluator is comprehensive enough to interpret records and facilitate meaningful parental input.  After a few recent experiences, though, we’ve found it is beneficial to err on the side of retention in the event that the protocols and other documentation generated during the evaluation become necessary.

Going Forward

We know that many evaluators have a practice of destroying testing protocols and raw response data after an evaluative report has been completed.  Unfortunately, in some circumstances this practice will run afoul of a school’s obligation to provide and explain education records or facilitate meaningful parental participation in special education processes.  As a result, we recommend that you inform all of your evaluators and service providers that they are required to retain testing protocols and other documents produced while conducting evaluations.  In fact, this is a requirement we’ve incorporated into our recently updated evaluation criteria policy.

If you have any questions about requests for access to testing protocols, or any other issue, please don’t hesitate to call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler or Sara at (402) 804-8000, or send us all an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com. 

It’s the Most Wonderful Time of The Year…SUMMER BREAK!!

Do you hear that? 

It doesn’t matter what sound we’re talking about.  The fact that you can possibly say “yes” at all to that question is a sign the students are gone and summer is upon us in South Dakota.  While it may be quieter in your building, there is no rest for the weary as you now try to get to that pile of papers on your desk labeled “Future Self’s Problem.” 

We know how large that pile can get, so hopefully this post can help alleviate some small concern regarding one summer activity for administrators: the annual July meeting.  In South Dakota, state law defaults a school board’s annual meeting to the second Monday in July.  While there are a few things required of boards at these meetings, there are many other action items that lend themselves well to discussion at this meeting.  

So what formalities does South Dakota law require of boards at the annual meeting? Fortunately, this list is actually quite small:

  • Seat newly-elected board members, 

  • Elect a board president and a vice president,

  • Designate a depository and the custodians of all accounts, and; 

  • Designate the legal newspaper to be used for publishing all official notices and proceedings.

New Members and Officers.  South Dakota requires newly-elected board members to assume membership at the annual meeting in July.  New members have to take an oath to support the laws of the Constitution and of the United States and to faithfully perform the duties of board membership. Once the new board is set, they must elect a president and vice-president for the year.  

Newspaper Designation.  At some point during the annual meeting, boards must designate an official newspaper.  The newspaper must: 

  • be printed in English,

  • contain at least four pages per issue,

  • have each page be at least 120 sq. in.,

  • have at least 200 paid subscribers, 

  • not consist of mostly advertisements, and

  • maintain an office of publication for at least 8 hours a week (new requirement from the 2022 Legislative session.

If the paper has daily issues (either electronically or in print), it must be distributed at least five days a week.  If it’s a weekly paper, it must be distributed at least weekly no less than 50 times a year. 

Other Designations.  While the legal newspaper designation may have the most boxes to check, the law requires boards to designate a bank as well.  It’s also common for schools to designate those authorized to write checks, to act as administrators for federal programs, reauthorize membership in organizations such as ASBSD, and to name legal counsel for the district.  Additionally, it is common for boards to set school board pay, appoint committees, and handle other yearly matters during the annual meeting.  

Legal Counsel.  Many boards designate the law firms(s) that they will work with during the next calendar year.  While such action is not required by law, it does clarify a school’s intention to work with legal counsel and empower administrators to seek advice when it’s needed. There’s no requirement in South Dakota to name a single individual, or even a single firm, as legal counsel for the district.  In many instances, it is preferable to have more than one firm named, especially when Title IX and special education issues arise.  

Stay Cool!  We hope this information will help you prepare for your annual meeting.  If you have any questions about your  July meeting, or if any other legal issues are keeping you from enjoying your summer, please don’t hesitate to reach out to Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler or Sara! 

Matters of Public Concern: Staff Political Expression and the First Amendment

As societal and political tensions remain high,   Districts have to walk the balance beam of respecting employee first amendment rights on one hand, and avoiding controversy in communities on the other.  Staff don’t surrender all of their first amendment rights by working for a school district, but schools are still able to stop teachers from using their position as a platform for politics, with support from ethical regulations and constitutional case law.     

Free Speech For Me or For Thee?  

This is America, and we all have First Amendment rights.  In fact, the First Amendment rights of educators are more robust than those of private employees. This is because public employers are “state actors” governed by the First Amendment, unlike private employers.  Schools must respect their employees’ rights to speak “as a private citizen” on “matters of public concern.”  You’ll recognize those phrases from iconic cases like Pickering, Garcetti, and Connick.  

However, “when a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom. . . When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”  Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). 

A Two-Part Test

Courts apply a two-part test to determine if a public employee’s speech is protected by the First Amendment.  The first step really asks 2 questions: did the employee speak (a) as a private citizen (b) on a matter of public concern.  If the answer is “no” (to either inquiry) the First Amendment does not protect the employee’s speech.  If the answer is “yes” (to both inquiries), the First Amendment may protect the employee’s speech.

To determine whether an employee is speaking as a private citizen, the fact that an employee is at the workplace is not necessarily dispositive.  Instead, the court will look to whether the employee spoke pursuant to their official duties (which is, of course, more likely in the workplace).  

To determine whether an employee is speaking about a matter of public concern, courts look to the “content, form, and context” of the statement, along with the employee’s motive in making the statement.  Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).  Speech related to a subject that would be of public concern is not protected if the expression addresses only the personal effect upon the employee, or if the only point of the speech was to further some purely private interest. 

But Don’t Engage in Viewpoint Discrimination . . .  

Ok, so let’s assume there’s a situation where the employee is not making the speech as a private citizen, but rather while they are at work (think rainbow flags or bible verses).  This may fail the test above, but it does not give a district carte blanche authority to regulate the speech in any way it wishes.  Most notably we see this come up when Districts have pressure to eliminate certain instances of teacher speech while allowing others.  This is considered “viewpoint discrimination” (i.e. “we are only regulating this speech because we don’t like the opinion”) and is effectively the worst free speech offense a governmental entity can commit.  You can ban all personal decor by teachers in their classrooms, but you can’t ban only decor espousing a certain message.  See United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 752, (2012).  

Changes Coming?

If you’re a nerd like us, you may have been paying attention to the oral arguments this week in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.  Kennedy was a football coach who would lead players in prayer on the field after games.  The school eventually placed him on leave after he refused to comply with the District’s requests to halt his actions on the field. 

This case may open the door for employees of districts to be more assertive of their first amendment rights.  We’ll be keeping close tabs on this case when the Supreme Court issues its decision. 

What Were You Saying About Ethical Regulations?

In South Dakota, the teachers’ code of professional ethics is found in article 24:08:03:02 of the South Dakota Code.  That law requires all teachers and education service providers to: 

  • Take precautions to distinguish between their personal views and those of the local school district or governing body (24:08:03:02 (1));

  • Not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political and citizenship rights and responsibilities (24:08:03:02 (3)); and  

  • Not exploit the local school district or governing body to promote political candidates or partisan political activities. (24:08:03:02 (5)).

The state attorney general has further indicated that individuals who engage in political advocacy while they are working for schools or other government agencies also run afoul of the law.  In Official Opinion No. 88-28, Expenditure of Public Funds on Election Issues (June 29, 1988), the South Dakota Attorney General warned that public employees may engage in political advocacy “strictly in their individual capacities as private citizens.”  The opinion continues that public employees engaging in political advocacy at work “raises serious constitutional questions.”

Conclusion
Politics are messy, and schools are already messy enough places without them. If your district wants to ensure staff stay above the fray at work, make sure you’re consistent in your enforcement. If your district is facing difficult First Amendment issues, don’t hesitate to send us an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler or Sara at (402) 804-8000.

To Graduate or not to Graduate: New Rule Attempts to Clear Up Confusion on Special Education Students and Diplomas

Spring is in the air: crocus and daffodils are starting to sprout; children (and their parents) are grumpy while adjusting to daylight savings time; and IEP teams are struggling with the decision about whether a high school senior with an IEP should graduate with a regular diploma or continue to receive services for a 13th year.  The issue is so fraught that even local media have picked up on the issue.  For better or for worse, IEP teams will have more clear rules to follow if the South Dakota Department of Education’s proposed rule changes are adopted.  These rules make fundamental changes to graduation decisions for special education students.  Read on to discover the answers to the questions that both general educators and special education professionals will need to know about the new rule.  (Click here if you are wondering why the Department is proposing these changes.) 

1. Can the IEP Team Decide to Grant a Student a Diploma if the Student Has Not Met State Graduation Requirements?  

In a word? No. The new rule makes it absolutely clear that a school district does not have the discretion to grant a student a diploma unless that student has met the state required graduation requirements. The new rule expressly eliminates the IEP team’s previous discretion to “modify specific units of credit.”  Simply put, under the new rules, the credits are the credits and deviations from those jeopardize the student’s ability to receive a high school diploma. 

2. What can IEP teams do to ensure they are only changing the student’s diploma track if that is what is best for the student?  

Students who receive “accommodations” are still eligible to graduate with a regular diploma.  Students who receive “modifications” likely are not.  Guidance from the Department states that accommodations are efforts educators make to assist a student in mastering the same content that typically-developing students master.  Alternatively, modifications excuse students from learning some of the actual material or demonstrating some of the skills that typically-developing students are expected to learn as a condition of receiving a high school diploma.  Students who receive “accommodations” but otherwise master the curriculum’s content, may receive a regular diploma. So, when the team is discussing how to best offer specially designed instruction to a special education student, be mindful of whether a student could be successful with accommodations if it is important for the student to graduate with his or her cadre.

Districts should note the progress goals of an IEP may not necessarily coincide with graduation requirements, so IEP teams should be careful when drafting the IEP to ensure credit is given when it is appropriate for the student.  The new rules spell this out, as they require schools to notify parents if an alternative assessment could impact the student’s right to a diploma.  Teams should keep in mind the lessons from the Endrew F. case that IEPs are not form documents, and that parents can still challenge team decisions on grade level advancement or conferring course credit when they believe it has ultimately denied the student a “free appropriate public education.”  

3. What if Our Local District Has Higher Graduation Requirements Than Those Set by the State? 

If the board chooses, it can modify its policy to allow for graduation with the state minimums under specific circumstances.   Department staff take the position that if the district has a clear policy in place regarding the procedures for such a waiver for all students, and does not just waive the requirements for individual students on an ad hoc basis.  If you subscribe to the KSB Policy Service, you will receive a sample policy waiving local graduation requirements in our May updates.  If you are not a KSB Policy Service subscriber, reach out to us if you would like assistance in drafting or revising your local policy. 

4. What’s the biggest takeaway?  

Minimum graduation requirements in South Dakota are not fluid.  IEP teams should be thinking about the consequences of implementing a modification, because it could result in the student not earning a diploma.  All teams should be trained on and aware of these issues, especially during the transition process when teams consider post-secondary goals and student needs.

Please reach out to anyone at KSB if you have any questions. You can e-mail us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or call the main office number 402-804-8000.

Toto, I’ve a Feeling We’re Not in South Dakota Anymore: When national legislation trends find their way to our own backyard!

Every year South Dakota schools get to hold their collective breath in the late winter as the legislative session plays out.  Last year we all anxiously awaited the results of the homeschool and transgender sports participation legislation.  This year set a record for the most bills introduced in South Dakota history, giving schools even more reason to take some deep breaths.  A significant number of these bills saw support from out-of-state individuals and organizations.  Once these out-of-state proponents leave, schools are the ones left grappling with the consequences and challenges associated with implementing the new legislation each July. 

So where are we at, halfway through this session?  Basically, one significant bill has already been signed into law, and several bills that saw significant resistance from educators failed.  However, quite a few bills remain that schools should keep an eye on for potential impacts to education in South Dakota. 

What has passed (so far):

SB 46 ”Protect Fairness in Women’s Sports” - This is the transgender sports participation bill.  It requires schools to designate every sport as either “Male,” “Female,” or “Coeducational or mixed.”  It prevents any student other than those whose birth certificate indicates female from playing in sports designated as female.  KSB will follow up with the legal implications of this bill in a future blog post.  This is the first impactful education bill that has already made its way through the full process, but we are almost certain it will not be the last.

What has failed:

  • HB 1015 would have required a moment of silence at the start of every school day.  Despite gathering some attention, the bill did not make it out of committee. 

  • HB 1172 would have allowed teachers to help students evaluate the “strengths and weaknesses of scientific information.”  It failed on the House floor. 

  • HB 1111 would have created a right to refer school board health actions to a public vote.  The House Education Committee killed the bill. 

  • HB 1216 would have removed collective bargaining rights from teachers but was met with a significant amount of controversy, and the bill’s prime sponsor withdrew it. 

  • HB 1265 and HB 1266 would have increased the credits of government required for graduation, but both were tabled by the sponsor. 

What remains:

  • HB 1198 would require the display of the state motto in schools.  It has passed through the House and will be considered by the Senate. 

  • HB 1185 would permit beaded graduation caps as well as feathers at graduation by Native American students.  The bill has passed the House and will be considered by the Senate. 

  • HB 1246 would “establish the fundamental right of a parent.”  This bill is intended to codify US Supreme Court precedents  regarding the rights of parents, but its language is broad and could reach further than the relevant facts in those cases. 

  • HB 1308 would allow schools to provide bonuses to any staff member without having to go through the collective bargaining process.  Previously, the law only allowed this explicitly for teachers.  The bill has not come before a committee. 

  • HB 1310 would require the extensive public display of all training, curriculum, and instructional materials and would provide patrons an avenue for a lawsuit if they think the law has been violated.  Successful litigants could recover their attorneys’ fees.  The bill is set for committee hearing next week. 

  • HB 1337 is effectively the “Critical Race Theory” bill.  It would take away substantial control from school districts in determining curriculum and is opposed by the ASBSD, SASD, and SDEA.  It awaits a vote on the House floor. 

  • SB 139 creates “community-based” schools using state funds.  The bill effectively creates multiple charter schools on reservations in the state.  It awaits hearing in the House after passing through the Senate. 

There are many other bills introduced that may impact schools, most of which concern funding. The highlighted bills above are where we think schools will need to pay the most attention for purposes of legal compliance and policy updates and implementation.  If you have any questions on what is going on in Pierre, feel free to call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler, or Sara at (402) 804-8000, or email all of us using ksb@ksbschoollaw.com!

They Listened! Department of Education Softens Restrictions on Long-Term Substitutes

In December of last year, the SD Department of Education changed the definition of what it means to be a “long-term substitute.”  Under the new rule, any educator who taught for longer than six weeks would no longer be a “substitute,” but would effectively become a “teacher” and would therefore have to be certified.  The Department’s stated goals were understandable--ensuring students are taught by certified staff as often as possible.  However, finding substitutes was already highly difficult for South Dakota schools, and this rule made it even more onerous to find substitutes for the times schools need them the most. 

Fortunately, the Department has listened to some of the ideas of stakeholders in the state, and began the process of pulling back their new rule in fall of this year.  The updated rule cleared its last hurdle recently, when the legislative committee approved it on November 15.  The updated rule will take effect on December 7. 

So, what does it actually say?! The Department did not undo their more specific definition entirely, but inserted some exceptions for the instances where schools’ need for substitutes most often arises.  The default is that a “long-term” substitute still needs certification, unless one of the following applies:

  • The person substitutes for a vacant position for less than 45 cumulative school days while the District tries to find a permanent teacher;

  • The person substitutes for a teacher who is on FMLA leave; or

  • The person substituting has an inactive certificate. 

Practically speaking, if you have a teacher resign in September, you can have an uncertified person substitute but they cannot do so for more than 45 days.  If a teacher goes on FMLA leave, you can have an uncertified person substitute for the absent teacher however long you need.  (This means that now is a great time to refresh on the FMLA requirements generally and especially for common FMLA uses like maternity/paternity leaves and others.  Look for something discussing common FMLA issues from us soon!)  If a substitute used to be certified but no longer is, you can have them substitute however long you need. 

Again, this rule takes effect December 7, and will hopefully provide some relief for schools desperate for long-term substitutes. Please reach out to Karen, Bobby, Steve, Coady, Jordan, or Tyler with any questions!

Good News Business Managers! What ISN'T Required of Business Managers for School Board Minutes

shutterstock_422686657.jpg

Lawyers don’t often get to be the bearers of GOOD news, so when it happens, we savor it.  At the 55th Fall Conference of South Dakota School Business Officials, Karen and Tyler got to share good news about meeting minutes and we enjoyed it so much, we thought we would follow up with this blog post.  We’re happy to inform all members of the South Dakota education community that managing school board meeting minutes should not be taking up as much of your time as it potentially is right now. 

First of all, what should we do for meeting minutes?  Here’s what the minutes should include, and hopefully it’s a shorter list than you think: 

  • Date and location of where the notice and agenda were posted;

    • Notice must be posted “prominently” at the principal office of the District for at least 24 hours preceding the meeting

    • The notice must also be posted on the school district’s website (assuming you have one); 

  • Whether the meeting is in person or via teleconference;

  • A statement that copies of the relevant documents were available to the public;

  • The substance of all matters discussed and acted upon; 

  • Conflict of interest disclosures and decisions regarding those disclosures;

  • How each member votes if the vote takes place by roll call; 

  • If the Board goes into executive session, the minutes must include:

    • The purpose and citation to SDCL 1-25-2 (personnel, contract negotiations, consulting with legal counsel, etc.);

    • Which board members moves to go into executive session and who seconds; 

    • The results of the roll call vote of each board member. 

Additionally, the District has to maintain the unapproved draft minutes and make them available for inspection no later than ten days after the meeting.  Alternatively, if you record your meetings, you can post the recording of the meeting on your website within five days of the meeting instead of posting the unapproved draft minutes. 

Now, this is a fair amount to keep track of, but hopefully you have been routinely including most of this information in your minutes or, if you’re going to add new elements they won’t be onerous.  What we are REALLY excited to tell you about is what DO NOT need to include in your minutes.   You don’t have to:

  • Note every member of the public in attendance;

  • Note when members of the public leave; 

  • Note who speaks during public comment; 

  • Summarize what members of the public say during public comment;

  • Include anything else not on the list above!

Hopefully this information is helpful for business managers by taking something off of the already overfilled plates. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan or Tyler with any questions at (402) 804-8000 or ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.