Q&A with KSB, Round 4: New Details on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act… 1 Thing We Learned, and 5 Choices For You

As promised, we have kept a close eye on federal guidance discussing the recent federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “FFCRA”).  As you most likely have heard, the FFCRA created two new types of employer-paid leave related to the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) emergency paid sick leave; and (2) emergency family and medical leave.

On Thursday evening (3/26), the U.S. Department of Labor issued further non-binding guidance here.  We carefully reviewed the additional information, and came to one conclusion . . . . 

This needs to be discussed in a KSB Webinar!

So, back by popular demand, we are hosting an informational webinar and we will answer your specific, school-related questions related to the FFCRA and your response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

When: Tuesday, March 31, 2020, at 10:00 am CDT

Where: Zoom (click on THIS LINK)

The recent federal guidance also provided some details regarding administration of this federal leave raising important choices for school districts.  Here are five things public school districts and ESUs should consider as you plan for employee requests for this leave (which could come as early as Wednesday).

1. Are you going to allow employees taking FFCRA leave to supplement with paid leave? 

The majority of your employees who technically qualify for any leave under the FFCRA will not qualify for full pay.  If employees are taking leave because their children’s school or daycare is closed, the amount of the pay to the employees is capped at two-thirds of the greater of (a) the employee’s regular rate of pay, (b) the federal minimum wage ($7.25), or (c) the minimum wage of the state in which the employer is located ($9.00 for Nebraska).  At two-thirds of whichever rate applies, there will likely be a gap between the amount of pay received under the FFCRA-paid leave and an employee’s typical full pay.

The federal guidance indicates that employees are not entitled to use their accrued paid leave at the same time as taking paid leave under the FFCRA.  If, and only if, an employer agrees to allow it, then an employee can choose to use accrued paid leave to make up for the one-third of normal earnings that are excluded from much of the FFCRA paid leave.  So, school districts and ESUs should think about how they want to handle requests to supplement paid FFCRA leave with other accrued leave.

2. Are you going to allow employees to take FFCRA leave intermittently?

Whether an employee is teleworking or working at the employee’s usual worksite, an employee can take emergency family and medical leave intermittently only when the employer agrees to it.  Otherwise, the Department of Labor’s guidance indicates that an employee cannot unilaterally demand to take emergency family and medical leave intermittently.  So, an employee asking to work only three days per week or only half days is not entitled to do so unless the employer agrees.

3. How flexible are you going to be regarding working hours, including remote work or telework?

One of the conditions triggering eligibility for paid emergency family and medical leave is when an employee is “unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave to care for” the employee’s child (under 18) because the child’s school or daycare is closed as a result of a COVID-19 emergency.  So, a critical issue for employers is how to determine whether an employee is truly “unable” to telework.

The recent guidance does not really explain how to make that determination.  But, the guidance does suggest that if an employee and an employer agree that the employee can work his or her normal hours outside of the employee’s regularly scheduled hours (such as early in the morning or late at night), then the employee is able to work and emergency family and medical leave is not appropriate.  Therefore, according to the guidance you cannot force the employee to take modified hours.

As a result, it is prudent for school districts and ESUs to consider providing additional flexibility, particularly in terms of timeframes, for employees to fulfill ongoing duties while working remotely.  If your employees agree to continue working with the additional flexibility that you offer, then the employees are able to work and would not be eligible for the emergency family and medical leave.

4. How are you going to treat employees who are not working at all, and who are not getting paid, because their worksite is closed?

Some of your employees may not qualify for any paid leave under FFCRA.  The federal guidance indicates that employees do not qualify for paid emergency sick leave or paid emergency family and medical leave if (a) the employee’s worksite is closed, (b) the employer sent the employee home and stopped paying the employee, and (c) because the employer does not have any work for the employee to do.  “This is true whether [the] employer closes [the employee’s] worksite for lack of business or because it was required to close pursuant to a Federal, State or local directive.”

School districts and ESUs should think about responding to requests from these employees who have been sent home, are not performing any services, and are not getting paid at all.  Similarly, if an employee is not working or working irregular hours but still getting paid pursuant to a work agreement or board declaration, those work agreements may require employees to take leave available to them (like FFCRA leave) instead of receiving pay under the return to work agreement.  (KSB Note: we will cover this in detail during our webinar.)

5. What are you going to do about teachers who choose to stop working and take leave under the FFCRA?

As you likely know, Nebraska has a statute that provides: "In case of epidemic sickness prevailing to such an extent that the school or schools in any school district shall be closed, teachers shall be paid their usual salaries in full for such time as the school or schools shall be closed.”  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-8,106 (emphasis added).  

If a teacher elects to stop working (e.g., stop creating online enrichment materials, stop being available for online chats with parents and students, stop communicating and collaborating with educational colleagues, etc.) in favor of taking leave under the FFCRA, the school district will have to decide how to address that teacher’s compensation.  

Under the caregiver leave in the FFCRA, the amount of pay would be capped at two-thirds of the teacher’s regular rate of pay.  In other words, taking FFCRA leave could represent a decrease in the amount of compensation that a teacher takes home in comparison to their usual salary received for performing teaching duties.  Also, as noted above, employers are not obligated to allow employees to supplement this two-thirds pay with their own paid leave.

A “usual” salary regularly depends upon the teacher fulfilling his or her duties.  For example, if last fall a teacher took extended FMLA leave (which before the FFCRA was always unpaid), the teacher could have supplemented his or her compensation by taking paid leave pursuant to the employment agreement (i.e., the negotiated agreement).  But, absent accrued paid leave, if any, the teacher’s “usual” salary went to $0 during the period of leave because the teacher was not performing any teaching duties.

An argument can certainly be made that a teacher who elects to take leave under the FFCRA to care for a minor child(ren)--rather than continuing to perform teaching duties--has chosen to receive two-thirds of his or her regular rate of pay rather than his or her “full” salary.

The recent federal guidance offers conceptual support for this position.  The U.S. Department of Labor indicates that an employee is not entitled to take paid leave pursuant to an employment agreement concurrently with FFCRA leave.  An employee can supplement the compensation received under FFCRA leave with paid leave (e.g., PTO, vacation, sick leave, etc.) only with the employer’s agreement.  With this issue in mind, it is prudent for school districts to at least consider how they will treat compensation for a teacher who elects to stop performing teaching duties in favor of taking FFCRA leave.

*   * *

As you can see, even this limited number of issues raises a lot of questions and decisions for you to make.  We hope that you join us on Tuesday, March 31, 2020, at 10:00 am CST for Q&A with KSB where we can address these issues and answer your other questions.  We look forward to seeing you (remotely, of course!).

For Your Vacant Staff Lounge: A New Poster from the Federal Government

As you have no doubt heard (maybe from us?), the federal government recently enacted the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “FFCRA”).  The FFCRA creates two new types of employer-paid leave: (1) emergency paid sick leave, and (2) paid emergency family and medical leave.

The FFCRA requires all covered employers (including all public schools) to post notice about the Act.  Just yesterday (March 25), the U.S. Department of Labor issued a model poster which you can use to satisfy your obligation.  This notice must be posted “in conspicuous places” on the school’s premises “where notice to employees are customarily posted.”

So, although your staff lounge is most likely vacant by now, make sure that you have this notice posted prior to April 1, 2020.

The Department of Labor has yet to issue regulations explaining the details of FFCRA (which it claims are forthcoming), but it recently published several non-binding guidance documents, such as this list of FFCRA Q&As.  One of the few pieces of new information that the Department of Labor announced was the effective date of this new law: April 1, 2020.

Unfortunately, there has been no revision, regulation, or guidance reversing the federal government’s decision to exclude public school districts (and other political subdivisions) from the group of employers who are entitled to receive payroll tax credits to recoup the expenses that they incur in providing this paid leave.  So, come April Fool’s Day 2020, public schools must pay for this employee benefit, and they do not receive payroll tax credits. That’s no joke.

We anticipate that as we get closer to April 1, schools will begin to get inquiries and requests from employees interested in taking one or both of these types of paid leave.  As of yet, the Department of Labor has not issued any official forms for you to use in documenting and granting such leave. We will keep a close eye on whether these forms start to be issued and for regulations that will (hopefully) clarify some of the tricky issues that this law has created for schools.  We’ll keep you posted (no pun intended, . . . well, sort of) on any updates.

As you begin to navigate the challenges of administering this new paid leave, responding to individual requests, or just trying to understand the poster, we recommend that you work with your school attorney, or contact Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan for advice on these issues.

Questions and Answers about Special Education after OSERS and NDE’s “Continuity of Learning” Guidance During COVID-19 Closure

It’s been 3 weeks. Let’s have some straight talk.  The terms “enrichment,” “educational services,” “continuity of learning,” and many others are melting your brains at this point.  You and your staff just want to know: “How can we best serve students while complying with our legal, ethical, and moral convictions?” The difficulty in answering that question is compounded by the fact that most state and federal leaders have said they expect schools to remain closed for the remainder of the school year, or longer.   

As schools come to terms with the fact that they will not be back in session for the fourth quarter, educators are fighting their instincts to hustle and provide educational services, while recognizing their obligations to all students.  There are many barriers to overcome in moving to a completely virtual education model--or makeshift model, if we’re being honest. One of the most intractable challenges has been the issue of how districts would comply with the IDEA, in addition to equity issues of many kinds, like access and resource disparities. 

So, what exactly are “enrichment” activities compared to “educational services” that trigger our FAPE obligations?

Good question!  

The majority of school districts around the country decided at the outset that they would not provide educational services to students during the closure, or decided to get more information before trudging forward with educational services.   This decision was based in large part on the enormous practical difficulties with building a virtual school system on the fly, during a global pandemic, and amending dozens, hundreds, or thousands of IEPs. These districts were concerned about their obligations to special education students, not trying to blame them.  

The first set of guidance from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) was clear:

If an LEA closes its schools to slow or stop the spread of COVID-19, and does not provide any educational services to the general student population, then an LEA would not be required to provide services to students with disabilities during that same period of time.

…

If an LEA continues to provide educational opportunities to the general student population during a school closure, the school must ensure that students with disabilities also have equal access to the same opportunities, including the provision of FAPE.

If a district “does not provide any educational services,” then it does not owe FAPE to special education students.  While the subsequent “guidance” (discussed in the next question) does purport to provide flexibility (from OSERS/OCR) on how to implement FAPE, it does not change the more fundamental conclusion that if educational services are provided to general education students, then the requirements of FAPE apply.  Based on this guidance and a common sense reading of cases resulting from other emergencies and catastrophes, there is a difference between providing services which seek to allow students to advance along the curriculum compared to supplemental, voluntary learning serving as enrichment opportunities. We believe this is where the distinction lies, though admittedly no regulatory agency has actually undertaken to draw this line with any certainty.

Didn’t the US Department of Education tell us we don’t have to worry about the IDEA and Section 504 Act, because they’ll be lenient?  That these laws shouldn’t “stand in the way” of service students during school closures on a mass scale?

NO!  

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and OSERS released a supplemental Fact Sheet on Saturday, March 21, 2020 addressing these issues.  At first blush, that guidance seems to be definitive and empowering.  In bold type, OCR and OSERS declare: 

To be clear: ensuring compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ... and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act should not prevent any school from offering educational programs through distance instruction.

The Fact Sheet goes on to make clear that OCR and OSERS are not actually excusing school districts from providing students with disabilities with a FAPE.  Instead, the Fact Sheet simply says that schools may use technology to provide FAPE: 

However, school districts must remember that the provision of  FAPE may include, as appropriate, special education and related services provided through distance instruction provided virtually, online, or telephonically.  

If a school district is going to offer its students educational services, they must continue to provide students with disabilities all the services that the student’s IEP team have said are necessary for FAPE.  Those services are not excused, but they can be provided using other communication modalities -- including distance learning.  This is not new -- IEP teams have always been free to provide supplemental services using telehealth and other technological methods.  But those have typically been by choice, not by deadly pandemic restrictions.  

School attorneys are warning about massive practical and procedural issues, because we understand and appreciate the rights of schools, parents, and students.  If you perceive your school lawyer to be “holding you up,” you are misunderstanding our motivations. If a school district is going to provide educational services, thus triggering its obligation to provide FAPE to all of its special education students during this pandemic closure, it must provide those students  with the full menu of services and service minutes that are called for in their IEPs--those IEPs in place prior to the closure.  Any changes to those services, related services, and service minutes may be implemented ONLY (a) with written parent consent or (b) after a full IEP meeting.  This will require case managers across the country to modify millions of IEP documents. And all of this will need to be done before the student’s services change and within 10 days of the school offering educational services to its general population.   

Now, if you are going to amend a student’s IEP during the closure, you can certainly do it by working collaboratively with the parents of the student and just agreeing to an amendment without a meeting.  In those situations, you’ll need to send PWN to the families along with a copy of the revised IEP. On the other hand, if families won’t agree, you’ll need to convene an IEP meeting, amend the IEP (and if necessary implement those changes without parent agreement).  That decision will also need to be supported by a PWN. 

Guidance issued by NDE’s Office of Special Education on Sunday, March 22, 2020, reinforces this conclusion:  “If the district continues providing education opportunities to students during the closure, this includes provision of special education and related services, too, as part of a continuity in learning plan.”  So neither state nor federal regulators will just waive FAPE if you are doing “education” for typically-developing students. 

We’re not saying OSERS, OCR, and state departments of education are leading schools astray--quite the opposite.  They are trying to thread a needle from the perspective of enforcement agencies. But we do think you should understand the fact that they’re not the only ones who get to enforce the IDEA.  While flexibility from state and federal regulatory bodies is helpful, they can’t control a judge, hearing officer, or administrative law judge any more than you can.

Well, we can just handle all these special education issues by offering compensatory education, right? 

NO.  

The Nebraska Q&A makes this explicit.  It states, “This … does not allow a district to decline all services to students with an IEP and only offer compensatory services at a later date.”  Cases from across the country make this clear, too.

The Fact Sheet states, “Where, due to the global pandemic and resulting closures of schools, there has been an inevitable delay in providing services – or even making decisions about how to provide services - IEP teams ... must make an individualized determination whether and to what extent compensatory services may be needed when schools resume normal operations.”  

Notice that this does not excuse school districts’ obligations to provide special education during a closure so long as the school promises to make up for the missing services after school re-opens.  Instead it says if a school delays services due to the pandemic, the IEP team must consider whether the delay needs to be remedied with compensatory education when the school reopens.  

When school reopens, each student’s IEP team will need to consider whether that student needs some additional services as a result of the closure.  The Nebraska Q&A explains, “Districts should communicate the expectation and plan to meet with Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams, including parents, when school resumes, to address student-specific needs resulting from the closure.”

The assumption that you can somehow reduce or ignore services during the closure simply because you plan to consider compensatory education has become a common misconception.  Worse is the assumption that you can justify the excusal to provide services by promising to consider compensatory education on the front end.

Well, the Fact Sheet at Least Waived all of Our IDEA Timelines, right? 

NO.  

The Fact Sheet has an attachment that lists all of the IDEA timelines.  It states, “As a general principle, during this unprecedented national emergency, public agencies are encouraged to work with parents to reach mutually agreeable extensions of time, as appropriate.”  Then under each of the relevant timelines that are listed, the Fact Sheet makes clear that timelines may only be waived with parental consent.  Schools are not automatically excused from their IDEA (and in Nebraska, Rule 51) timelines just because they are closed due to this national emergency.  

Now, in Nebraska we have prided ourselves on the strong, collaborative relationships we build between schools and parents.  And we are confident that the vast majority of parents will be happy to work with their local school districts to agree to workable timelines related to their children’s special education services.  But do not let the headlines about the Fact Sheet fool you. School districts are still fully obligated to meet their IDEA timelines -- regardless of whether they are providing “enrichment” or full “education” to their students. 

Speaking of “Enrichment” versus “Education,” the Nebraska Department of Education is requiring full educational services, right? 

NO.  

We have strong collaborative relationships with NDE, and we have worked closely with them throughout this crisis.  To their great credit, NDE staff is trying to get you guidance as soon as possible, too. But many schools have gotten a false impression that they will not receive a waiver of Rule 10 requirements for accreditation unless they are offering “full educational services” that continue to move through the state standards and local district curriculum.  That is simply not true.  

The Commissioner has made it clear that he expects school districts to provide some sense of connection, community, and normalcy for students.  He does not expect schools to march through state standards or provide explicit instruction to all students. The rush to treat this pandemic closure period -- however long it lasts -- as a mere shift in modality of instruction is going to leave schools exposed.  To be candid, we think schools should start by considering the social and emotional needs of their community, and then move on toward academic work.  

Let us be clear: We are not saying that schools should avoid providing full educational services to students.  Nor are we joining the chorus of unhelpful voices attempting to shame schools into rolling out educational services triggering FAPE despite all the legal and practical issues that will entail.  It is our job to give you options and support you in making the best decision you can for your individual district. Our fear is these options have not exactly been clear.

Understand that if you elect to provide full-blown “education” that you must also provide students with disabilities with FAPE which must be documented in each student’s IEP one way or another.  

Got it -- If we are doing educational services triggering FAPE, we need to amend IEP documents.  So if we are just doing enrichment, we don’t have to do any paperwork, right?  

WRONG.

Our best reading of the laws and guidance is that you should provide PWN to every child with an IEP within 10 school days of your district’s closure (or, if it is just not feasible, as close to that 10 days as you can).  

These PWNs are legally significant documents, so despite our efforts to provide schools what they need when we can, we cannot simply link them to this post.  If your school district works with an attorney other than KSB, you should get their input on the version of PWNs that you send out, because those attorneys will be the ones defending you in a due process hearing or OCR investigation.  Similarly, we doubt most schools will need only one PWN.

We have provided copies of sample PWNs to KSB clients who have requested them, and we will be happy to provide them to anyone else who requests them.  You should be wary of anyone sharing “the” PWN to send in this chaotic time. These PWNs, even in draft form, constitute legal advice. We are charging a flat fee of $150 for the five sample PWNs and our instructions about how to use them.  This is not because we are unwilling to share our expertise, but because we really need to have direct communication with all clients who will be using these forms for both the district’s and KSB’s protection.

Did you listen to the “continuity of learning” webinar?!  What about all the other special education questions that we have?  

We made it a point to make sure all of the KSB attorneys listened to the webinar hosted by the Nebraska Council of School Administrators on the afternoon of March 23, at which leaders from the Nebraska Association of Special Education Supervisors and officials from NDE spoke.  The practical suggestions were excellent, and we enjoyed listening in to educators share how they are fearlessly tackling some of these issues locally. We kept a log of the questions on the chat, and we have done our best to provide thoughts on the legal questions: 

What about extended school year services?

This question has come up repeatedly.  Any student who has ESY in his/her current IEP is entitled to those ESY services.  We all hope and pray that schools and ESUs will be back in full operation by June and July and able to provide those services.  We don’t think you need to meet immediately about ESY services. That being said, if you are meeting to amend a student’s IEP soon anyway, the team could certainly address proactively what will happen if COVID-19 prevents the student from receiving ESY as initially planned.    

We would also note that if a student has ESY listed in his/her IEP, that means the team has already determined that this student has issues with regression and recoupment after school breaks.  The team should take that into consideration when they discuss that individual student’s need for compensatory education when the school reopens (we hope!) for the 2020-21 school year. 

Do we have to complete minute for minute programming based on the IEP?  

Yes, IF:

1. Your school district is providing educational services requiring FAPE; AND

   1. The IEP team has NOT met to amend the student’s service minutes in the IEP; OR

   2. The parents have NOT consented to amend the IEP to reduce those minutes without a meeting. 

No, IF:

1. Your school district is providing non-graded enrichment only; OR

2. The IEP team has met to amend the student’s service minutes in the IEP; OR 

3. The parents have consented to amend the IEP to reduce those minutes without a meeting 

MDT/IEP/Evaluation timelines? How do we handle MDTs in progress?

The Fact Sheet makes clear that these timelines are not being waived.  Repeat, there is no waiver of timelines in any law, guidance, or well placed promise of lenience.

Now, we fully believe NDE will not aggressively enforce timelines when they conduct file reviews and other compliance activities covering this COVID-19 outbreak time.  However, parents and parent-side attorneys and advocates can (and absolutely are within their rights to) demand that schools meet their timelines unless the parents agree to waive them for an individual student. 

Our best advice is to do your best to hold the MDTs that you can complete and to provide PWN to all families who have MDTs in progress which will not be able to be completed.  

How should we be completing new IEPs?  Do we complete them assuming they will start next year or using the programming that would have happened prior to the end of this school year? 

If your school is providing educational services triggering FAPE, you should write the IEP to address both the services the student will receive during the closure and the services that will be provided after school reopens officially.  You should anticipate the closure may last longer than the end of the 19-20 school year.

If your school is providing enrichment only, you will describe the services that the student will receive when school reopens.

The reality is that most IEP teams will need to reconvene when school reopens anyway, so keep that in mind before you stress too heavily about getting the wording exactly right in each plan. 

How do we work with students who were in the process of moving but the school that they were going to register at was closed due to COVID 19?

The school district where students are located is the LEA.  Even if that school is closed, that new district will be legally responsible for the education of those students when they move in (regardless of what state the new district is in). 

Now if a student is “homeless” under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Students Act, the family will have the option of seeking services from their district of origin or the district in which they are currently located.  You should confer with your school district’s attorney on specific issues that would arise in this circumstance. 

What are the guidelines for MDT evaluations that cannot be completed?

Your best bet is to reach out to families now and see if they will agree to waive the deadlines.  If they will not, contact your attorney for help crafting a PWN that you can send to these families.  

If school districts are not providing general education or special education, would we owe compensatory education?  Should that be in the PLEP?

Generally, your obligation to provide compensatory education will not be driven by your decision to provide enrichment or educational services triggering FAPE.  In either case, when school reopens, each student’s IEP team will have to ask whether a student has lost skills during the closure and, if so, whether the team will need to provide compensatory education.  

If a student is receiving supplemental services that cannot be provided without in-person service (the Fact Sheet lists hands-on physical therapy, occupational therapy, and tactile sign language educational services as examples), the IEP team will also need to assess whether the student needs some compensatory education services when school reopens or when it is safe to meet with students in person.

Compensatory services can be documented in the PLEP or in an annual goal, wherever the team and/or case manager thinks it appropriate in a given case. 

Will nursing or health care needs that were available at school be necessary if a school is having live sessions during portions of the day that the child requires related services, such as feeding? Could districts potentially have to pay a parent for these services if they take place during educational time?

Nursing services would only be required at home if:

1. The school district is providing educational services; AND

2. The student cannot access FAPE without that nursing at home. 

Remember that medical services as “related services” generally are only required to allow a student to access his or her FAPE.  Schools are not required to provide medical services unless they are related services under the IDEA. To that end, the Fact Sheet makes clear that if it is not safe for staff to serve the student, the district should not endanger student or staff health.  Instead we suggest providing PWN and having the student’s IEP team consider possible compensatory education services when school resumes.  

A COVID-19 Legal “To Do List” and Resources, All in One Place!

Entering week 3 of the COVID-19 craziness, we know you’re on information overload.  Speaking of which, for those asking, here’s a link to our webinars including the most recent Q&A from Friday, March 20 (with guest star Orron Hill, NPERS legal counsel).  We’ll plan to conduct additional webinars/Q&A sessions as needed, and we appreciate your feedback on the frequency and substance of these. You can also navigate to any of our guidance documents here.

The purposes of this update are simple: (1) to provide a list of the most common issues we’ve helped schools address over the last few weeks, with linked resources; and (2) to set the stage for legal compliance issues you’ll face this week or soon.  Please “forward it like it’s hot” to any staff or board members who have asked for this information or may be interested.

• Decide on your “continuity of instruction plan 

We’re leading with the real reason why we’re all here: the students!  Stay up to speed on “enrichment” versus “educational services” discussions and guidance as you continue forming and implementing your education plans during the closure.  Saturday night, OSERS and OCR issued “new” “guidance” on serving students with disabilities during school closures. You can read it here.  Commissioner Blomstedt discussed it on the NDE ZOOM yesterday, and we believe NDE will have guidance out on these really tough issues soon, including your questions about dual credit classes, equality of access to technology/internet, and others.

Our prior update (linked here) where we covered the initial OSERS/OCR guidance (OSERS linked here; OCR guidance linked here; OCR webinar linked here) probably won’t change all that much and is worth reviewing with your staff as you move further down the planning and implementation path.  The Nebraska Department of Education’s Office of Special Education also issued updated guidance on Sunday night, which consists of a Q&A designed to help special education directors and service providers.  That guidance can be found here.  

After the NCSA/NDE “Continuity of Learning” webinar tomorrow at 1:00 PM Central (ZOOM link here) and some other discussions KSB is having with NDE, ESU special education staff, and others, we’ll have an update out that focuses on legal issues surrounding this issue.  

• Provide PWN to all of your special education students.

Regardless of the continuity of instruction plan you are implementing, you will have to work with your special education staff to draft and send prior written notice documents for all of your special education students.  These will need to be sent after you have missed 10 school days due to the COVID-10 closure. The law and guidance are clear that students on IEPs must receive “prior written notice” (PWN) once their educational placement has been changed due to closure for 10 days or more.  KSB has drafted some samples to consider, which we will be sending to clients after tomorrow afternoon’s NDE webinar. Remember, however, that each district’s obligations and PWNs will need to be tailored to your education plans. You should consult with your school or ESU’s attorney on getting legally compliant PWNs ready to roll out on time.

• Address staff leave and work assignment issues, if you haven’t.  

Both the Governor and Commissioner Blomstedt strongly suggested this closure will last the rest of this year.  From authority resolutions, to return to work agreements, to negotiated agreement addendums, schools should have a staffing and compensation plan in place for the balance of the closure for all staff.  In addition to pay/benefits issues covered by return to work structures and agreement addendums, this includes:

• Understand your staffing limitations if “Directed Health Measures” are issued for your area, like they have been in Douglas, Cass, Sarpy, and Washington Counties.  Here’s the DMH for those 4 counties, which Governor Ricketts said would be the same as those issued per ESU territory for future community spread cases;

• Consider NPERS issues in light of staffing and paid leave plans (Here’s the NPERS guidance);

• Plan for staff leave requests under the revised FMLA .  

Last Wednesday, Congress passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (full text here...if you’re a glutton for punishment).  KSB’s update on the overview of the law is linked here.  We also discussed it at length during our March 20 ZOOM webinar and plan to release additional updates as the US Dept. of Labor starts issuing the required notice posters (March 25), forms, and additional guidance.  This applies to all public schools and ESUs, so you will get requests!

Even if you are paying all of your staff their full pay and benefits pursuant to a return to work agreement or paying teachers under the state statute, you may still have things to consider under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.  For example, many school districts have been expecting teachers and at least some classified staff to perform duties during school closures. Districts may now be precluded from demanding performance of those duties if employees request employer-paid leave under this new federal law.  

If your school employees use this new employer-paid leave, you will want to talk through the issues related to payroll tax credits with your school auditors/accountants.  There will be more guidance on exactly how this will work from the Dept. of Labor soon.

• Plan for Electronic Board Meetings 

The Governor’s executive order has temporarily given boards some freedom to use technology to hold public meetings virtually.  Here Executive Order 20-03.  Here is follow-up guidance issued by the Attorney General.  Keep in mind the AG’s guidance makes clear that if you have a quorum (or more) of board members present at one physical location, that location must be open to the public to attend in-person.  No, you can’t kick them out if you have a quorum present in any physical location. KSB clients or anyone interested can contact any one of us for sample notices and guidance on your e-meeting options.  

• Review Unemployment Entitlements

Executive Order 20-04 changes unemployment entitlements under and may interact with your staffing plans during the closure.  Your boards and staff will likely have questions. Here is the order.  Here’s KSB’s Q&A about EO 20-04.  

• Get a signed copy of your county’s (or other local government) emergency declaration order. 

If your county has declared an emergency, you should get a copy of that order.  Ask your county emergency contact if they have listed your school or ESU in their declaration.  The county’s order may be relevant for 2 purposes: 

• If your county has listed your school/ESU in its emergency declaration, that may entitle you to whatever FEMA/emergency aid is available due to COVID-19. If they haven’t, your board may want to pass a motion or resolution consistent with the FEMA and other requirements at its next meeting; 

• If your county has passed an emergency declaration, that also may entitle your board to authorize emergency expenditures, including in excess of your existing statutory authority under section 81-829.51.  However, any action you took prior to your local government (county, or city in some cases) declaring an emergency--and prior to having a copy of that declaration in hand--won’t give you that authority.

KSB will have guidance out on this soon for our clients, including instances where your emergency expenditure authority may be needed if this closure lasts as long as the experts are starting to talk about.

• Teacher Evaluations.

If you have completed staff observations for a full instructional period, you should schedule post-conferences in person or electronically.  If you have all of the observations completed but still need to craft a summative evaluation document, you should likewise do so as quickly as is reasonable.  

If your administrative staff did not complete all of the classroom observations scheduled for the second semester, you are going to have to decide how to handle that problem.  You may still want to consider your options for completing evaluations prior to the end of the 19-20 year, such as observing staff during e-learning or enrichment activities. How your policy defines observations and “full instructional period” will matter.

If nothing else, you may want to consider issuing a letter or memo to each certificated staff member entitled by law and/or policy to an evaluation that will not occur due to the closure.  The purpose of the evaluation process is to help staff improve, and you can still provide notice of perceived deficiencies and concrete suggestions for improvement to each staff member. We will have a sample for KSB clients and anyone interested to consider soon. 

• Request a Rule 10 waiver, once NDE completes its form, and fill out the Food Service survey NDE sent out last week.  

We understand NDE is in the process of preparing a document which can be completed in about 30 minutes for Rule 10 waivers.  Many of the items on this list may impact those decisions.

We hope you find this information helpful.  If you have any questions about the information above or any other issue, we recommend you contact your school attorney, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan.

We. Are. Faaaaamily! The Families First Coronavirus Response Act and Public Schools/ESUs

This past Wednesday night (March 18), President Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act into law.  You’ve been hearing about it since the House passed its version last Saturday. Now, it’s cleared the Senate and the President’s desk.  This post covers the high points of the new law, but understand from the start that at this point there are more questions than answers on how exactly it will impact schools and ESUs specifically.  Technically the law becomes effective April 1, 2020. The Department of Labor also has until then to issue clarifying guidance. Here’s what we know right now.

The Act creates two new types of employer-paid leave: (1) emergency paid sick leave, and (2) emergency family and medical leave.

EMERGENCY PAID SICK LEAVE

The Act provides for up to two weeks of employer-paid sick leave if an employee is unable to work for any of the following COVID-19-related reasons:

(1) The employee is subject to government-imposed local quarantine or isolation order.

(2) The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine.

(3) The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis.

(4) The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to a quarantine or isolation order or who has been advised by a health-care provider to self-quarantine.

(5) The employee is caring for a son or daughter of such employee if the school or place of care of the son or daughter has been closed, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions.

(6) The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by certain government officials.

Yes, you read that italicized paragraph correctly.  An employee can take employer-paid sick leave to care for their child if the child’s school or daycare is closed due to COVID-19 precautions.

This paid sick leave is available to all employees, “regardless of how long the employee has been employed,” and is “available for immediate use.”   Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of paid sick leave. Part-time employees receive up to the number of average number hours that the employee works during a two-week period of time.  So, an employee who normally works 30 hours per week will still only get 2 weeks’ worth of paid leave (so 60 paid hours, not 80).

For Nebraska school employees taking emergency paid sick leave for reasons (1), (2), or (3) above, the employee will be entitled to the greater of either (1) the employee’s regular rate of pay, or (2) the Nebraska minimum wage ($9.00/hr).  Notice that this may be higher than the hourly rate you regularly pay your employees since Nebraska school districts are not subject to the Nebraska minimum wage.

 For employees taking such leave for reasons (4), (5), or (6) above, the payments are reduced to two-thirds  of the greater of (1) the employee’s regular rate of pay, or (2) the Nebraska minimum wage.

The Act also caps the total amount of payment (in dollars) that employees can receive, has guidance on  how to determine paid sick leave for employees with varying schedules, and places other specific requirements of employers.

EMERGENCY FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE

Unlike traditional FMLA leave, the emergency FMLA leave created by the Act is employer-paid leave.  Employees are entitled to up to 12 weeks of emergency FMLA leave when the employee is unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave to care for the son or daughter under 18 years of age of such employee if the school or place of care has been closed, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to . . . an emergency with respect to COVID-19 declared by a Federal, State, or local authority.

Again, neither the employee nor the child are required to be infected with or show symptoms of COVID-19.

All public school districts and ESUs are employers under the emergency FMLA.  In order to be considered an “eligible employee” for this emergency FMLA leave, employees need only be employed for at least 30 calendar days by the employer from whom the leave is requested.  

As we read the new law, every school employee (employed 30 days or more) will be entitled to this leave if they are actually unable to work, even remotely, due to having to care for a son or daughter.

(NOTE: This is in contrast to employee eligibility for “traditional” FMLA which requires, among other requirements, that an employee has been employed for at least 12 months, works at a job site with 50 or more regular employees, and has provided at least 1,250 hours of service during the previous 12-month period.)  

The first ten days of emergency FMLA leave are unpaid, and the next ten are paid--at a rate of two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay.  However, the two provisions of the new law work together, so the employee may be able to take an initial 2 weeks of leave and be paid for it under the Emergency Sick Leave provisions of the Act and then take Emergency Family and Medical Leave after those first two weeks have expired.

There are a lot of other details in the Act, including caps on total leave payments, how other paid leave can be substituted, how to handle employee with varying schedules, the effect of other provisions of the FMLA, and certain exemptions for certain employees.

Is school closure enough?

The sole fact that the school where the employee works has been closed as a result of COVID-19 is insufficient in and of itself for an employee to qualify for either paid sick leave or emergency FMLA.  For example, an otherwise healthy school employee--who does not have young children and who is not caring for anyone else--is not entitled to any of the two new types of leave under this law.

As a result, the two types of leave created by the Act do not fully address many of the challenges that school leaders are facing.  A primary concern is how to provide pay and/or leave to valued staff to retain them and keep them available for school purposes.

How do you pay for it?

You’ll find a way!  (Not kidding….) Seriously, that’s their plan for public school districts.

Although the Act provides for payroll tax credits in favor of most employers to offset the expenses that the employers incur in providing this paid leave, those payroll tax credits do not apply to political subdivisions of the state (like public schools).  That’s right, the federal government just created a new benefit, that is available starting April 2, 2020, and public schools are going to have to pay for it. On these tax issues, we recommend that you work with your auditor and/or school accountant about addressing the expenses you incur in providing this federally-mandated paid leave.

We asked employees to sign return to work agreements, so does this change any of that?

It’s completely up to you and your board.  We believe these new laws will supplement, but not necessarily replace, the actions taken by your board and the pay and benefits provided under existing laws during closures.  For example, an employee may have burned through his or her FMLA leave already; or “shelter in place” orders may require employees not to come to work (regardless of childcare availability).  Plus, several employees simply will not qualify for either of the two new types of leave available under the Act.

Okay, KSB, that’s confusing.  Let’s see some examples…

1. Pam (a para) has been working diligently on any assignments you give her.  She’s a team player and has been asking her mom to care for her 3 children every day since March 16.  However, on March 31, Pam’s mom is told by her doctor to remain isolated because she is a diabetic with a heart condition.  On April 2, Pam sends in a leave request to care for her 3 school-age children. Between closures and lack of providers, there is no other child care available for Pam in your community.  Pam is probably eligible for 2 weeks of Emergency Sick Leave (even if she/her child are not sick!) to care for her children, and then likely eligible for Emergency Family Medical Leave to care for her children. She would receive at least two-thirds of her pay during this entire time, for the remainder of her expected duty weeks, up to a total of 12 (the usual FMLA limit).

2. Tom (a teacher) has not had a great attitude through the closure. He’s a PE teacher and doesn’t understand why he has to provide any enrichment activities for students during the closure.  You are requiring all staff members to at least make student contact regularly to provide enrichment activities; staff are also working collaboratively (remotely) on curriculum review and planning for future educational services.  Tom just doesn’t want to do it. Tom tells you his 3 young boys are “a handful” and therefore, due to the school closure and daycare closure, he can’t complete any of these requirements. Tom asks for both Emergency Sick Leave and Emergency Family Medical Leave.  Your choice will be to honor Tom’s request or to deny it, arguing he is not “unable” to work. However, if you deny it, Tom may be able to file a labor complaint or lawsuit on that basis.

3. Jane (your head custodian) is immuno-compromised and says that despite wanting to work, her doctor has ordered her to remain in isolation in her home unless it is medically necessary for her to leave.  Jane may qualify for the Emergency Sick Leave based on her medical professional’s directive to self-quarantine. However, that is only 2 weeks’ worth of leave. You will still need some arrangement with Jane for the weeks after.

4. Sally (a long term sub) has started exhibiting symptoms of some sort of upper respiratory virus.  Her doctor has told her that she doesn’t qualify under the medical protocols for COVID-19 testing, but that she should self-quarantine as if she had tested positive.  As a long-term sub, Sally was not offered a return to work agreement, and she would not normally be entitled to any paid sick leave. Sally qualifies for the Emergency Sick Leave based on her medical professional’s advice.  She will also likely qualify for 12 weeks of paid FMLA leave at two-thirds of her long-term sub pay. 

If you have any questions about these new categories of employer-paid leave, how to plan for the inevitable requests for this leave that you will receive, and other employment issues arising from school closures and COVID-19, we recommend that you contact your school attorney or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan at KSB School Law.

Q&A with KSB, Round 3!

When: Friday, March 20, 2020 at 11:00 AM CST

Where: ZOOM (Info below)

What: Q&A over COVID-19 Issues

Our first and second ZOOM sessions covered many topics.  On Friday, we’re going to cover many more! Here’s what’s happened since Tuesday!

• Unemployment executive order

• Families First Coronavirus Response Act passed, expanding FMLA leave

• The first “Directed Health Measures” put in effect for Douglas, Sarpy, Cass, and Washington counties

• (Hopefully) Guidance from NDE, USDOE, and OCR re services to students during closure

• FEMA/NEMA emergency considerations and Nebraska Emergency Management considerations

• SO. MUCH. MORE.

We’ll be taking your questions in real time on the webinar.

JOIN THE ZOOM HERE

Q&A with KSB, Round 2 - THIS AFTERNOON!

Big Things Happening Today...

When: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:00 PM CST

Where: ZOOM (Info below)

What: Q&A over COVID-19 Issues

Our first ZOOM webinar discussion of COVID-19 issues on Friday seems like a year ago! We have had several board members and administrators ask if we’d hold another, in light of the events of the last several days, closures of all schools by Friday, and what, exactly, you need to consider as you plan for the coming weeks (and maybe months).  We’ve spoken with NDE, ESU special education staff, and others to try to stay up on the most recent guidance and recommendations, in light of the legal obligations.

We also want to know your questions in advance!  We’re happy to take them in real time on the webinar, as well, but if you have questions now please put them into this Google Doc.

This video is about My Movie 3

Protecting Patient Zero - Maintaining Student Confidentiality While Responding to COVID-19

If you tuned into our informational webinar or received advice from your school attorney, you know that one of our favorite answers to coronavirus questions is “talk to your local public health officials.”  You also likely heard about how important it is keep your school community informed with the status of your plans and preparations to respond to the novel coronavirus.  Communications with these stakeholders are central to an effective response supported by the community, but at the same time schools must be mindful of their obligation to maintain the confidentiality of student records and information under state and federal law. 

FERPA (Not HIPAA) Applies to School Records  

It is important to remember that The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and state student record laws govern the confidentiality and disclosure of education records and treatment records maintained by a school or other educational institution. HIPAA, which applies to medical institutions and their maintenance of medical records, does not apply to the records of a school as long as the use of the records is for educational decisions.  This was explained at length in joint guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education and the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which can be found here.

Maintaining Student Confidentiality

FERPA is administered and enforced by the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO, formerly the FPCO).  The FERPA regulations, found at 34 C.F.R. Part 99, require the protection of the privacy of students’ education records and afford parents and eligible students certain rights to inspect and review education records, to amend these records, and to consent to the disclosure of personally-identifiable information (PII) from education records. FERPA prohibits the disclosure of PII from education records without written consent, unless an exception to consent applies.  

An education record is any record that directly relates to a student and is maintained by an educational agency or institution. 34 C.F.R. § 99.03. An education record can either be in “print or computer media.”

This means FERPA would determine whether or not your school nurse could share information she collected about a student with county health officials.  This also means that, unless an exception applies, written parental consent is required prior to disclosing such information. Earlier this week, the SPPO released guidance to schools responding to the novel coronavirus in the form a FERPA & Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”), which can be found here.  The FAQs were intended to assist school officials in working with public health officials while complying with the requirements of FERPA.

Sharing Information with Health Officials

While consent is generally required prior to disclosing PII from a student’s education records, an exception applies if a school determines, based upon the totality of the circumstances, that there is an articulable and significant threat to the health or safety of the student or another individual necessitating disclosure.  This is often referred to as the “emergency” exception to consent.

The FAQs document empowers schools to use this exception as appropriate to share information with health officials.  It provides:

If an educational agency or institution, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, determines that an articulable and significant threat exists to the health or safety of a student in attendance at the agency or institution (or another individual at the agency or institution) as a result of the virus that causes COVID-19, it may disclose, without prior written consent, PII from student education records to appropriate officials at a public health department who need the information to protect the health or safety of the student (or another individual). Public health department officials may be considered “appropriate parties” by an educational agency or institution under FERPA’s health or safety emergency exception, even in the absence of a formally declared health emergency. Typically, public health officials and trained medical personnel are among the types of appropriate parties to whom PII from education records, may be non-consensually disclosed under FERPA’s health or safety emergency exception.

The document further empowers schools to rely on the opinions of local public health authorities in determining whether there is a significant, articulable threat to students.  It states, “If local public health authorities determine that a public health emergency, such as COVID-19, is a significant threat to students or other individuals in the community, an educational agency or institution in that community may determine that an emergency exists as well.” 

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Education has emphasized that a school’s decision to release information pursuant to the emergency exception will not be second guessed.  In fact, 34 C.F.R. § 99.36(c) reads as follows:

If, based on the information available at the time of the determination, there is a rational basis for the determination, the Department will not substitute its judgment for that of the educational agency or institution in evaluating the circumstances and making its determination.

Sharing Information with the Public  

While the health or safety emergency exception would permit disclosure of PII to health officials, it would not permit disclosure of PII to the general public.  According to the FAQs, schools may generally release information about a student to the school community “only if that information is in a non-personally identifiable form.”  In releasing information, the school must ensure that the student’s identity is not personally identifiable, either directly or indirectly considering all reasonably available information.  

Conclusion

Fortunately, FERPA provides schools the discretion to disclose student information to appropriate officials as necessary to combat significant risks posed by the novel coronavirus.  In communicating with the public, though, schools must be mindful of a student’s right to confidentiality and only disclose de-identified information. If you have any questions about complying with FERPA, or any other legal issue, we recommend you contact your school’s attorney, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan.

You Say You Want a RESOLUTION, Well, You Know! School Board Resolution, Authority, and Considerations under COVID-19

All of KSB’s guidance, sample documents, and links to key agency guidance can be found here, at our dedicated COVID-19 page: ksbschoollaw.com/covid19

We’ve had many requests for the webinar recording, which you can access directly from our COVID-19 site, or by following this link: KSB COVID-19 WEBINAR

During KSB’s impromptu COVID-19 webinar on Friday, March 13, 2020, we proposed to circulate a sample resolution which would give the superintendent the authority to take non-discretionary actions in the event of a possible disclosure.  There is also an optional provision attempting to account for the staff leave and payment issues we discussed. You can access that resolution here, and as always, you should consult with your school district’s attorney and receive advice prior to adopting a resolution.

Your board may also want to consider a variety of additional issues in anticipation of a possible school closure.  We have tried to come up with a list of the key COVID-19-related issues your board may also want to consider. Where we have already provided guidance on these issues, we linked it below.  As always, you should consult your school district’s attorney on each issue, because your existing policies, contracts and other unique situations will require customization of these resolutions for your district:

• Leave considerations for certificated staff covered by the negotiated agreement.  As you know, the NSEA proposed an addendum to modify your negotiated agreement.  KSB has also posted a modified version which requires staff to use leave provided by your negotiated agreement.  Here is our update about both addendums, your options, and other considerations.

• Leave considerations for classified staff and certificated staff not covered by the negotiated agreement.  Upon request, KSB or your school’s attorney can work with you on documents you may need to provide any necessary pre-closure leave and post-closure continuation of pay and benefits to employees not paid by law.  The board could consider a motion or resolution authorizing the superintendent to sign these agreements, provide paid administrative leave, or implement additional leave.

• Authority to suspend, cancel or reschedule certain events, such as prom, graduation, and school trips.  Although we believe that the superintendent has the authority to take these steps without formal board action, it may be helpful politically if the superintendent has formal board authority to take these steps since they will likely be unpopular with at least some members of your community.  Here is guidance provided by Nebraska DHHS regarding closures.   It specifically suggests not to hold events with an expected attendance of 250 or more people prior to community transmissions and to limit gatherings to 20 or fewer after community transmissions have begun.

• Authority to pay other non-discretionary claims.  In the event of a prolonged closure, the board may want to give the superintendent authority to make certain payments even if the board cannot or does not meet—for example service payments on a bond or payments to food vendors who are still providing items for the school’s food program.  The more specific this grant of authority is from the board, the less likely you will be to face a challenge from a disgruntled patron in the future. 

• Authority to assign staff as needed prior to a closure, during a closure, and after a closure.  Again, although superintendents already have the authority to assign staff as needed, this may be politically useful and will signal that staff assignments will be both unpredictable and may change without much notice.  This could include assigning staff to perform certain duties at home (although be mindful that such an assignment will almost certainly convert the employee’s leave day to a duty day.)

• Authority to hire additional classified staff or contract for sanitation and other services as needed.  Many administrators have asked about authority to hire staff or contract for services in the event deep cleaning or other services are needed due to COVID-19.  Most districts already have a policy conferring classified staff hiring authority to the superintendent or his or her designee, and a policy outlining the superintendent’s ability to contract for services.  However, a resolution specifying this may be appreciated by your administrators.

• Waiver of doctor's note requirements for student absences related to illness.  Many schools require a note from a physician after student absences last for "X" number of days.  Given the testing limitations for COVID-19 and the public policy desire for anyone sick to stay home, your board and administration should consider suspending those types of requirements under your mandatory attendance policies for the remainder of the year.  A simple motion vote could accomplish this if it is on your board's agenda.

There are certain duties which we believe that the board cannot simply delegate to the superintendent.  Our quick, non-inclusive list of those items includes the following:

• Authority to hire and/or discharge certificated staff.  By statute the board must take these actions.  This includes entering into a contract with administrators.

• Authority to waive or change credit hour requirements for graduation.  Again, this is a statutory function of your board.  Although we believe you will eventually be called upon to allow your seniors to graduate with a truncated set of credits and classes, the board will be the one required to take that action.  

• Authority to open and select bids, initiate a bond or override election, or amend the district’s budget.  These are core board functions that, by statute, cannot be delegated by the board of education.

• Authority to modify your negotiated agreement.   The board must approve negotiated agreements, so although the board can approve an addendum regarding leave, it cannot delegate to the superintendent the authority to modify the negotiated agreement without board approval.

We hope these considerations are helpful.  If you have any questions, please contact Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan, or contact your school district’s attorney.

So You Want to Skip Your Board Meeting… Coronavirus and Board Governance

*******You will be able to find all of the guidance from KSB School Law, and it will be updated, at this site: https://www.ksbschoollaw.com/covid19*******

We’ve seen many school districts close their doors temporarily in response to the COVID-19 or coronavirus.  Many other districts are thinking about doing the same. We wanted to share our thoughts about some of the questions we’ve heard about how to take certain actions if the school is closed and board meetings are cancelled.  

May a School Board Hold a Meeting by Video or Telephone?

No!  We can hear you now.  “But I know lots of organizations that hold meetings this way.”  And you’re right. All state agencies, boards, commissions, councils, and committees may hold such meetings.  Entities formed under the Interlocal Cooperation Act and the Joint Public Agency Act may hold meetings electronically.  So can the ESUCC, community colleges, and a couple of other public entities. But school districts are not on the list. Schools may allow any member of the public to attend a meeting by video or telecommunications equipment, but that rule does not include board members.  As Judge Smails put it 40 years ago, “You’ll get nothing and like it!”

If We Hold A Meeting, May the School Force Patrons to Watch the Meeting from a Separate Room by Video?

The public has the right “to attend” school board meetings.  As indicated above, schools may also allow any member of the public to attend a meeting by video or telecommunications equipment.  But we cannot find any authority which would allow you to force patrons to “attend” the meeting by watching the meeting on a video screen in another room.  If your region has a significant COVID-19 outbreak, please contact your school attorney before taking any steps restricting the public’s ability to attend your meetings. 

May We Delegate Certain Authorities and Powers to the Superintendent or Another Person?

The ability of the school board to delegate its duties to employees or others typically depends on the type of duty involved, the statutory language, and legislative intent.  The general rule is that a governmental board may not delegate its powers involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, but duties which are purely ministerial and executive may be delegated.  We can hear your now: “Save your legal mumbo-jumbo for the next guy. What can our superintendent do on behalf of the district if the board doesn’t meet?” Unfortunately, the line between discretionary functions and ministerial or executive functions isn’t always clear.  Our best advice is that the board likely CAN delegate the authority to make regular payroll (because that is ministerial) but CANNOT give the superintendent or other staff member blanket authority to pay all claims and sign all contracts (because that would involve discretion).  

May the board lawfully delegate the authority to hire new staff members to the administrative team?  What about the renewal of existing staff contracts?

School boards are statutorily required to approve employment contracts for newly hired certificated staff.  That duty cannot be delegated. Employment contracts for certificated staff “rollover” and automatically continue for another year unless action is taken by the school board by April 15th (unless there is an earlier date required by employment contract, negotiated agreement, or school policy) to nonrenew, terminate, cancel, or amend them.  This authority also cannot be delegated to an employee.  

If we hold a special meeting, can we go into closed session to talk about all of this stuff NOW, and plan for what we want to do based on staff requests, parent requests, and possible school closures?

Maybe! The Open Meetings Act allows school boards to meet in closed session to conduct “strategy sessions with respect to collective bargaining.”  This would entitle the board to enter closed session to consider the proposed medical leave addendum put out by the NSEA, or another addendum or contract you have received from your legal counsel.  Outside of collective bargaining, there are no stated reasons in the law to permit a closed session related to coronavirus issues.

In general, we do believe you can use closed session for contract negotiations (such as with administrators or classified staff), for the same public policy reasons you can use closed session for negotiations.  You may also be able to enter closed session to receive and discuss legal advice, to avoid waiving the attorney-client privilege. However, before you do so you, you should check with your school or ESU legal counsel.

Can we skip a regular meeting in one or more months?

Technically, no.  Section 79-554 states, “Regular meetings shall be held on or before the third Monday of every month.”  However, the board is permitted to excuse absences of board members who may be sick, and you can hold a meeting with a simple majority of members: “In all meetings of a school board of a Class III school district, a majority of the members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.”

In the event of mass closures or forced closures, we intend to reach out to the Nebraska Attorney General’s office for guidance on these questions.

Conclusion

As you can see, simply suspending the meetings of a board of education is not something that can be undertaken lightly.  As we understand the advice from public health officials, crowds of more than 10-20 people should be avoided. We think that likely means that your boards will be permitted to continue holding regular meetings, even if you do close your school for a period of time.  There’s a good argument that you should hold at least your regular meetings, which by statute are required monthly.

If you have any questions about your school skipping its regular school board meeting, we recommend you contact your school attorney, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan.

KSB ZOOM Discussion: Coronavirus (COVID-19) and Related Legal Issues

When: Friday, March 13 @ 12:00 PM Central (Friday the 13th, we know...)

Where: ZOOM - CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE RECORDED VIDEO OF THE WEBINAR

What: Cover legal highlights, answer questions, ask what else KSB can do to help schools through this fluid time

After the events of this crazy week, we're all on information overload.  We have tried to help with our COVID-19 Updates Page, but there's just no substitute for talking through complicated issues.  We're going to host a ZOOM discussion.  It will be an informal overview and discussion of all the guidance we've put out this week and the questions we've received since.  We'll cover employment issues, student issues, and specific questions we've received from many schools.  We'll then open it up for your questions and ask all of you what else we can do to help as you navigate the legal and practical issues around coronavirus.

Click here to join the ZOOM.

We'll also record this and can provide it to anyone who wants to watch it later.

No, You Don’t HAVE to Sign the Addendum!

*******You will be able to find all of the guidance from KSB School Law, and it will be updated, at this site: https://www.ksbschoollaw.com/covid19*******

Superintendent: Do we have to sign the addendum provided by our local union representatives?

KSB: No! It is only one of the options you have for dealing with coronavirus-related absences.

We have been contacted by many Nebraska school districts expressing interest in helping encourage teachers who may be showing early symptoms of COVID-19 to stay home from work to self-monitor their symptoms and/or self-quarantine.  One of the hurdles for some teachers choosing to stay home is that they may be out of sick leave or may not want to “burn” their limited sick leave.  

Toward that end, we did work with the attorneys from the NSEA to develop one possible addendum that school districts could make to their negotiated agreements to remove some of those perceived obstacles (i.e., not enough leave, an aversion to using leave, etc.) from a teacher staying home to help prevent the potential spread of the coronavirus.  The NSEA attorneys created the initial draft, which we appreciated, and KSB worked with the NSEA attorneys and others to revise it in order to include what we believe are some important protections for school districts that do want an addendum like this.

In short, the draft that the NSEA and its affiliate education associations may be proposing to you is only one option that your board of education can choose to pursue, among several options (including doing nothing!).

Although it may have been portrayed differently, it is not KSB’s advice that you should sign that addendum, and certainly not that you have to do so.  We simply provided our feedback on the option that the NSEA proposed to make it better for school districts, if they choose to go that route.

We have also been asked by many schools for a modified version which grants additional medical leave to staff due to COVID-19 concerns that applies only after staff have used their sick leave or PTO leave intended to cover illness provided by your negotiated agreement.  You can access the original addendum provide by the NSEA and a modified addendum requiring use of sick leave first, by clicking these links:

Addendum 1 -- NOT Requiring Use of Paid Leave (from the NSEA)

Addendum 2 -- REQUIRING Use of Paid Leave First (modified by KSB)

KSB School Law can help you draft a specific addendum that meets the specific goals of your board (and yes, any addendum will require board approval).  The 2 Addenda linked above are only 2 of many options you have. Also, keep in mind these only apply to certificated staff who are members of the collective bargaining unit.  This addendum does not address leave issues for administrators, specialists, and classified staff members who are not covered by your negotiated agreement.

If you have any questions about leave for teachers or other staff in response to the coronavirus, we recommend you contact your school attorney, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan.

Coronavirus Updates are Up!

As we mentioned in a previous post, KSB School Law intends to share resources with our clients and others regarding the most common legal issues schools and ESUs should consider related to the coronavirus.  We have updated information regarding Employment Issues and Food Service Issues. You can find that information here. 

Let Them Eat Cake!

*******You will be able to find all of the guidance from KSB School Law, and it will be updated, at this site: https://www.ksbschoollaw.com/covid19*******

Over the last several years, schools have been asked to fulfill more and more of their student’s needs beyond educational instruction.  Not only are schools a primary provider of mental health services for school-age children, but they also offer several programs to address the nutritional needs of students at risk of hunger.  It’s no surprise, then, that many are concerned that epidemic-related closures will disrupt the flow of food to children in need. As your school prepares to respond to a possible outbreak, here’s what you should know, and what questions you should be asking, about the effects school closures could have on your food programs and students.

Guidance and Flexibility from the USDA

Over the last several years, the USDA has shown flexibility in assisting state and local educational agencies in providing food to students in need during emergency closures.  In 2019, for example, the USDA waived various meal program requirements for several Nebraska schools in light of widespread flooding. 

The USDA also provides regularly-updated guidance, which can be found here, advising school food authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) of their ability to operate the SFSP and NSLP Seamless Summer Option (SSO) to maintain consistent food security to children in need during times of emergency closure.  

The Nebraska Department of Education (NDE) has submitted an application to the USDA for a waiver that would allow Nebraska SFAs to continue serving meals during an emergency closure through the SFSP.  The USDA granted such waivers to other states, such as Washington and California, and it is fair to assume that the Department will take similar action with respect to Nebraska. SFAs must notify NDE of their intent to provide meals during an emergency closure by completing the SFSP application, accessible via this web portal.

Additionally, the USDA will waive the 60-day requirement related to the submission of claims when emergency closures impede submission. 

Waiver of Congregate Feeding Site Requirements

Generally, the USDA requires SFSP meals to be distributed at “congregate feedings sites.”  This is based on the theory that students should eat meals together in safe, interactive environments.  However, upon request by NDE, the USDA will waive this requirement on a case-by-case basis where exceptional circumstances impose a barrier to congregate feeding.  According to recent press releases regarding emergency programs in California and Washington, the USDA has already provided such a waiver to these states affected by the novel coronavirus, allowing SFSP meals to be sent home with students.  That means Nebraska schools could anticipate being allowed to provide “grab and go” meals to students in the case of a school closure.  

Considerations Related to Food Service Providers

An emergency closure disrupting school food programs may also affect a district’s rights and obligations under agreements with their food service providers.  For example, the pricing structure underlying many agreements relies upon “assumptions” related to a minimum number of full-service days and anticipated demand.  Emergencies necessitating closures or stoppages of service are treated differently depending upon the specific contractual language used in your agreement. As your school considers the implications of an emergency closure, we strongly recommend you consult with your school’s attorney to review the terms of your food service agreement.  

Reassurance From Lunchtime Solutions Inc.

We know that many schools in Nebraska contract with Lunchtime Solutions Inc. as their food services provider.  Fortunately, Lunchtime Solutions has already reached out to reassure schools that it is prepared to plan for and provide meals during periods of emergency closures as deemed appropriate by the school.  We expect other food service providers would do the same, and are confident that any emergency food services program will be successful with the buy-in of these key partners.

Conclusion

While some expect more detailed guidance from the USDA to be forthcoming, we believe the currently available information gives schools valuable insight as they consider their response to an outbreak of novel coronavirus.  The USDA is flexible in working with schools responding to emergencies, and NDE is already working with the USDA to ensure Nebraska schools have the option to continue their food programs in some capacity. If you have any questions about the status and availability of the SFSP for your school, or how emergency closures would affect your rights and obligations under your contract with your food services provider, we recommend you call your school attorney, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan.

It’s a “Close” Call Employment Issues in the Event of a School Closure

*******You will be able to find all of the guidance from KSB School Law, and it will be updated, at this site: https://www.ksbschoollaw.com/covid19*******

As communities around the country record new cases of novel coronavirus, schools are grappling with tough questions about how to respond to this burgeoning pandemic.  The novel coronavirus, scientifically named 2019-nCoV, causes the COVID-19 disease, which has led to serious complications in some vulnerable populations, and is expected to spread more quickly than common coronavirus strains (such as influenza.)  

If school districts are required to close schools in response to a novel coronavirus outbreak, there are multiple employment issues that will be implicated.

Certificated Staff Issues

Nebraska has a state law that specifically addresses the rights of teachers to be paid if schools close due to the outbreak of an infectious disease.  Section 79-8,106 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes provides: 

In case of epidemic sickness prevailing to such an extent that the school or schools in any school district shall be closed, teachers shall be paid their usual salaries in full for such time as the school or schools shall be closed.

We believe that this statute would apply if a school district closes due to an outbreak of COVID-19.  Regardless of whether the school closure is ordered by the governor or the board of education decides to close after conferring with their local health department, teachers will be entitled to their full salary and benefits while the district is closed.  

The real question under section 79-8,106 is what is the definition of a “teacher.”  Chapter 79 of the Nebraska statutes never defines that term. In section 79-101, the Unicameral defines the term “teach:”

(12) Teach means and includes, but is not limited to, the following responsibilities: (a) The organization and management of the classroom or the physical area in which the learning experiences of pupils take place; (b) the assessment and diagnosis of the individual educational needs of the pupils; (c) the planning, selecting, organizing, prescribing, and directing of the learning experiences of pupils; (d) the planning of teaching strategies and the selection of available materials and equipment to be used; and (e) the evaluation and reporting of student progress
….

Later, in section 79-824, the Nebraska statutes provide a definition of “certificated employee”:

(1) Certificated employee means and includes all teachers and administrators as defined in section 79-101, other than substitute teachers, who are employed one-half time or more by any class of school district;

We read sections 79-101 and 79-824 together to mean that any staff member who is employed half-time or more and who is entitled to plan instruction and assess student achievement qualifies as a “teacher.”  If your school is forced to close, your board of education will be required to pay all half-time or greater classroom teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists, speech pathologists, occupational therapists, administrators, school nurses and media specialists.  Your board of education will not automatically be required to pay staff who work less than half time, regardless of whether they “teach.” 

Classified Staff Issues

Unlike teachers, classified staff have no statutory right to be paid if your school is forced to close.  Your district should begin considering now how it will want to treat classified staff in the event of a closure due to COVID-19.  No matter what a district does, the board is likely to be subject to criticism from the community. A board that decides to be frugal and not pay its staff can be criticized for not taking care of some of its most valuable employees.  A board that opts to pay classified staff could be targeted for being profligate with taxpayer dollars. That is why boards should start thinking about how they want to handle classified staff pay now in advance of the need to actually close school.  

We have identified a range of options that boards can consider in deciding how to handle classified staff pay during a school closure: 

Option No. 1: Pay classified staff nothing if they do not work.

Classified staff who are unable to work due to a school closure are not entitled to payment for their work under state or federal law.  Even if a classified staff member is ill and had sick leave available, the school will not have to pay that staff member if the school closes. 

Option No. 2: Allow classified staff to substitute accrued sick and vacation leave or compensatory time during a school closure. 

Some school districts allow classified staff to accrue both sick and personal leave.  Districts that are forced to close due to a COVID-19 outbreak may decide to allow classified staff to use their accrued paid leave during a closure.  Boards of education that decide to use this option should check with their school attorneys for the wording of a resolution that would allow staff to substitute paid leave during this school closure but not during other school closures (like the holiday or summer break).  

Option No. 3: Require/allow classified staff to work limited hours during a school closure. 

Some school districts may want to require or allow critical staff to work limited hours during a school closure.  School secretaries and custodians would be able to perform useful work, even if students are not in school buildings.  Boards of education that decide to use this option should check with their school attorneys for the wording of a resolution that would require critical staff to come to work and that is clear about how other classified staff such as bus drivers and paras will be treated during a school closure.  

Option No. 4: Pay all classified staff members some amount of paid leave in exchange for a “return to work agreement.” 

Many of the administrators we have conferred with want to provide some compensation to classified staff in order to ensure that they will not quit and find other work during a school closure.  But these same administrators are understandably reluctant to provide classified staff with unlimited paid leave regardless of the length of the closure. In this circumstance, the district could enter into a written agreement with each classified staff member to provide some level of paid leave in exchange for that employee’s promise to return to work when the school reopens or to return the payment made during the school closure.  This approach would allow the school district to retain its classified staff while avoiding legal and political issues related to giving away public resources. Boards of education that decide to use this option should check with their school attorneys for the agreements that could be used for this purpose.  

Option No. 5: Place all classified staff members on “paid leave” prior to closing the school district’s attendance centers. 

If a board of education wants to treat classified staff exactly the same way that it treats its teachers, the board could pass a resolution placing all classified staff on paid administrative leave prior to closing the district’s attendance centers.  This is the most legally risky option. Political subdivisions are not permitted to simply give away public resources. The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that the state constitution prohibits one group of taxpayers from being taxed for the benefit of another group. See e.g., Mann v. Wayne County Board of Equalization, 186 Neb.753, 186 N.W.2d 729 (1971).  Section 49-14,101 of the Political Accountability and Disclosure Act states in pertinent part:

(4) No public official or public employee shall use personnel, resources, property, or funds under that individual’s care and control, other than in accordance with prescribed constitutional, statutory, and regulatory procedures, or use such items, other than compensation provided by law, for personal financial gain.

The violation of § 49-14,101 is a Class III misdemeanor which carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine, or three months imprisonment, or both.  

We do not believe that Nebraska school officials will be criminally prosecuted if they pay their classified staff during a school closure.  We do think that a school district that wants to pay its classified staff should confer with its attorney and carefully craft any resolution that the board adopts to achieve this payment.  

Health Insurance and Other Benefits

As you can imagine, the way that school districts elect to compensate classified employees (or not) during a potential school closure may also affect health insurance and other benefits, including how such benefits are paid for.  

For example, practically speaking, many districts pay for the entire cost of health insurance and then deduct the classified employee’s portion of health insurance premiums from the classified employee’s paycheck.  Other school districts make health insurance coverage available to classified employees, but the employee actually pays for the health insurance through some combination of employer contributions and employee dollars.  Still other districts may have other arrangements.

The extent to which a classified employee receives regular, reduced, or no compensation during a potential school closure will affect both the amount of funds available for insurance premiums as well as how such payments are actually made.  It will be important for districts considering school closures to think about the practical consequences for insurance and benefits--in addition to the leave and compensation issues--when considering the appropriate way for those districts to interact with classified staff on these issues.

Seeking COVER from COVID-19! Pre-Closure Employment Issues to Consider Now

*******You will be able to find all of the guidance from KSB School Law, and it will be updated, at this site: https://www.ksbschoollaw.com/covid19*******

As part of KSB’s ongoing coronavirus updates, we wanted to centralize the most common legal questions and issues we have seen related to employment issues that are present now, even if there is never a school closure.  We have another update highlighting potential legal issues in the event of a school closure, many of which will overlap with the discussion below.  You can find that update and the other KSB coronavirus updates by clicking here.

We have already received many great questions related to staffing and employment issues schools are dealing with now.

Should you waive your sick leave limitations and limits?  Should you not charge staff for sick leave taken due to quarantine?  One uniform suggestion from public health officials is that people who may be sick should stay home.  However, some staff members have very limited paid sick leave, and others may not want to use sick leave for what seems like a cold.  We have had many schools ask us if they should waive or suspend their sick leave policies in favor of “If you’re sick, stay home!”

School boards could allow staff to take leave as needed to avoid spread of coronavirus for a limited period of time -- a few weeks, a month or the the remainder of the year -- regardless of whether the staff member could otherwise power through or take sick leave.  Of course, some schools are also worried about staff abusing this type of leave. This option may not work for you, but it is an option to avoid having ill staff members attend school based on existing limitations to sick leave use or not having sufficient days to cover an illness or quarantine period.

For classified staff or other staff not subject to collective bargaining, the board has legal authority to enact a policy or resolution temporarily “suspending” enforcement of sick leave provisions with a simple directive: if you feel ill, stay home!  

For certificated staff subject to the collective bargaining agreement, the board of education cannot just unilaterally add a benefit like unlimited sick leave without first conferring with the union.  The board for a school or ESU could approach their local teacher’s association and sign an addendum which would modify your 2019-2020 negotiated agreement. The addendum could clarify that, for purposes of avoiding the spread of the coronavirus, staff members will be granted additional leave to stay home.  This could supplement existing sick leave or functionally serve as another type of leave that could be used instead of sick leave. We are in communications with the NSEA about what such an addendum would look like, though we want to emphasize KSB is not “recommending” this.  It is simply an option for you to consider.

How should you treat employee requests for leave or ask to take leave based on doctor’s orders, in light of your existing sick leave, FMLA, and ADA obligation?  Generally, a staff member who contracts coronavirus would be entitled to take sick leave.  Their leave likely would not qualify for additional leave under the FMLA, ADA, or other disability laws.  

However, the duration of any leave period, hospitalization, or complications due to the virus could be a different story.  Although these employees would almost certainly qualify for sick leave, they may also qualify for other forms of leave. These employees may be entitled to take for leave under the FMLA, ADA, and even your short- or long-term disability leave policies.  You should carefully scrutinize any request for leave from staff members due to the virus, whether they have coronavirus or are asking or told to quarantine.

What if the school or ESU wants to exclude a staff member or contracted service provider?  Instead of staff members making requests, you may find yourself in the position of wanting to send a staff member home or suggest a leave of absence as the employer.  For example, with schools on spring break throughout March, you may have staff members, service providers, and independent contractors who have traveled to affected areas or have contact with potentially affected individuals.  

If you have suspended your leave policies as discussed above, you can likely send an employee home because the leave is paid.  If you send an employee home, you will need to consider whether you can require the employee to use sick leave, whether you owe statutory compensation to a teacher, and whether things like the FMLA may also apply.  You should look at your employment contracts and your board policies on sick and administrative leave.

For non-employee service providers and other contractors (food service, transportation, etc.), you will need to check your contracts.  You should reach out to those companies and providers now and clarify expectations in the event one of your contractors must remove its employees from your school, or if you as the school feel compelled to say they cannot serve students due to possible coronavirus infections.

Should you expedite completion of staff evaluations?  The short answer here is YES!  By policy and state law, schools and ESUs have evaluation obligations.  Remember that state statute requires administrators to evaluate probationary certificated staff members (teachers and principals), once each semester.  You never know when any individual staff member may need to take leave or may be ordered to take leave by a doctor. If you do not get the second semester evaluation completed, you will not be able to recommend the nonrenewal of a probationary teacher’s or principal’s contract.  

You should definitely speed up your evaluation timelines and get them done as soon as possible, so any potential school closure or individual quarantine or illness does not cause you to miss your evaluation obligations.

Should you provide statutory notices earlier just in case school closures happen statewide or in your community?  There is no pandemic outbreak exception for meeting statutory deadlines to provide staff with notice of possible amendment, nonrenewal, termination, or cancellation of contract.  If you are considering issuing a notice, you should do so now or at least consider how you would deliver notice in the event of future closures.

If you normally provide “intent to return” letters or use renewal agreements for staff, you may want to consider issuing those earlier than normal.  However, keep in mind you cannot require them to be returned prior to March 15.

Are staff members who contract the virus due to school duties entitled to workers’ compensation leave?  Generally speaking, employees that contract the coronavirus are not eligible for worker's compensation claims.  Under section 48-101, worker's compensation is available "when personal injury is caused to an employee by accident or occupational disease, arising out of and in the course of his or her employment."  

Occupational disease is defined by section 48-151 to mean "only a disease which is due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to a particular trade, occupation, process, or employment and excludes all ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is exposed."  

It seems that the coronavirus is an "ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed."  However, if an employee's course of work brought them into contact with the novel coronavirus based on exposure due specifically to serving students, and the general public in that community has not been exposed, the employee may at least make that argument.

Notably, in Murphy v. City of Grand Island, 274 Neb. 670, 742 N.W.2d 506 (2007), a healthcare worker brought a claim alleging that Hepatitis C constituted an “occupational disease”.  The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the employee offered insufficient proof that the disease arose out of and in the course of his employment.  However, the Court did not rule out the possibility that it could constitute an occupational disease. If an employee suggests they received coronavirus due to performance of school duties, you should at least contact your insurance carrier.

Queen of Corona(virus) Me and Julio Banned from the Schoolyard!

**This post was updated on March 13, 2020 to reflect the new guidance from the U.S. Department of Education.  You will be able to find all of KSB School Law’s guidance documents related to the novel coronavirus, and it will be updated, at this site: https://www.ksbschoollaw.com/covid19

As communities around the country record new cases of novel coronavirus, schools are grappling with tough questions about how to respond to this burgeoning pandemic.  The novel coronavirus, scientifically named 2019-nCoV, causes the COVID-19 disease, which has led to serious complications in some vulnerable populations, and is expected to spread more quickly than common coronavirus strains (such as influenza.)  As schools prepare to respond to the spread of this virus, one of the important issues that schools should consider (among many) is how the novel coronavirus implicates their obligations to meet the needs of students with disabilities. 

Best Guidance

As we anticipated in the original version of this post, the U.S. Department of Education adapted previous guidance related to the H1N1 Virus to provide schools information about their responsibilities to students with disabilities in the face of the novel coronavirus.  The new Guidance, entitled Questions and Answers On Providing Services To Children With Disabilities During The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak, was released by the Office for Special Education Programs on March 12, and can be found here.  It is referred to below as the “Q&A” document.  

This document largely builds upon the Department’s Questions and Answers on Providing Services to Children with Disabilities During an H1N1 Outbreak.  On the other hand, the Department’s Guidance on Flexibility and Waivers for SEAs, LEAs, Postsecondary Institutions and Other Grantee and Program Participants in Responding to Pandemic Influenza (H1N1 Virus) (“Guidance”) continues to provide additional information that can be read to supplement the Q&A document.  This guidance can be downloaded here.

These are our best sources of information about how to address the needs of students with disabilities during an outbreak of novel coronavirus.  

Planning Ahead

Recognizing the need for schools to prepare for any circumstances caused by the novel coronavirus, the Q&A document allows IEP teams to adopt contingency plans into a student’s IEP that would be triggered by a disruption in the student’s ordinary instruction due to the contagion.  The document provides as follows:

IEP teams may, but are not required to, include distance learning plans in a child’s IEP that could be triggered and implemented during a selective closure due to a COVID-19 outbreak. Such contingent provisions may include the provision of special education and related services at an alternate location or the provision of online or virtual instruction, instructional telephone calls, and other curriculum-based instructional activities, and may identify which special education and related services, if any, could be provided at the child’s home. Creating a contingency plan before a COVID-19 outbreak occurs gives the child’s service providers and the child’s parents an opportunity to reach agreement as to what circumstances would trigger the use of the child’s distance learning plan and the services that would be provided during the dismissal.

Services to Students With Disabilities Who Are Absent Due to Illness or Health Vulnerability

If a student with a disability is too ill to come to school, he or she is likely too ill to receive educational services.  If the student is home for an extended period of time (generally 10 days or more) the school should reach out to the family to see if the team needs to meet to craft a plan that includes homebound instruction.  

Schools should be even more proactive if a student is not ill, but cannot come to school because he or she is at high risk of health complications if exposed to the novel coronavirus.  The student’s IEP or 504 team should meet as quickly as possible to discuss how to meet these students’ educational needs during their time at home. The Q&A document provides:

[T]he IEP Team must determine whether the child is available for instruction and could benefit from homebound services such as online or virtual instruction, instructional telephone calls, and other curriculum-based instructional activities, to the extent available. In so doing, school personnel should follow appropriate health guidelines to assess and address the risk of transmission in the provision of such services.

In the Guidance, the Department specifically noted that these meetings would not have to be in person:  “The team may meet by teleconference or other means” if that would be appropriate. Once the danger to a high-risk student has passed, the IEP or 504 team should meet again to ensure that there are no additional educational needs that have arisen due to the student’s inability to receive services.  

Remember that Endrew F’s admonition is that IEPs must have “challenging objectives that are appropriately ambitious in light of the child’s circumstances.”   For students who are ill and those who are high risk, “the child’s circumstances” may include an inability to attend school.  This must be an individualized decision, not based upon stereotypes or generalizations related to the student’s disability. That means schools will not be able to adopt a “one size fits all” approach to these absences.  In some cases it might be appropriate to press forward with aggressive academic instruction using distance learning; in others it might mean backing off on some of the academic goals the team adopted when the school year started.  What is appropriate for each child will have to be discussed and decided by the student’s team in light of what is necessary for the student to receive meaningful education benefit.

Exclusion from School as a Change of Placement

The Q&A document specifically contemplated students that must be excluded from school due to the risk of novel coronavirus.  If the exclusion is a “temporary” measure, or one lasting ten or less days, the exclusion is not considered a change of placement.  However, where a student’s exclusion lasts longer than ten days, the school “must consider placement decisions under the IDEA’s procedural protections of 34 CFR §§ 300.115 – 300.116, regarding the continuum of alternative placements and the determination of placements.”

Services to Students with Disabilities During School Closures 

Federal laws like the IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504 do not specifically address what schools should do if they are closed for extended periods of time.  However, public schools are always obligated in all circumstances to ensure they do not discriminate against students with disabilities.  

The Q&A makes clear that if a school closes and does not provide educational services to the general student population, then the school would not be required to provide services to special education students either:

If an LEA closes its schools to slow or stop the spread of COVID-19, and does not provide any educational services to the general student population, then an LEA would not be required to provide services to students with disabilities during that same period of time. 

However, both the Q&A and the Guidance cautioned schools that, if they do provide some services to general education students during a closure, they must be sure not to discriminate on the basis of disability.  So, if a school district decides to use virtual learning to continue to instruct all students during a closure, the district will need to make sure that all of a student’s educational needs are met to enable him/her to benefit from this instruction as well.  District leaders cannot simply announce that general educational services will happen virtually without considering the needs of students with disabilities. Both special education and general education staff must understand that the decision to continue providing educational services in either physical form (like worksheets) or digital form (like Zoom or Schoology) will implicate special education obligations.  According to the Q&A: 

If an LEA continues to provide educational opportunities to the general student population during a school closure, the school must ensure that students with disabilities also have equal access to the same opportunities, including the provision of FAPE.  SEAs, LEAs, and schools must ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, each student with a disability can be provided the special education and related services identified in the student’s IEP developed under IDEA, or a plan developed under Section 504. 

Evaluation and Assessment During School Closures

In the Guidance, the U.S. Department of Education was unwilling to waive school obligations to evaluate and assess during school closures:

IEP teams would not be required to meet in person if a school closes. IEP teams, however, must continue working with parents and students with disabilities, including conducting informal assessments or formal assessments of the student, including parent surveys and standardized reports, and offer advice, as needed. If an evaluation of a student with a disability requires a face-to-face meeting or observation, the evaluation would need to be delayed until school reopens. Evaluations and reevaluations that do not require face-to-face assessments or observations may take place while schools are closed, if the parent consents, according to the guidelines.

Special education staff should look ahead to assessments and evaluations that are scheduled to occur for the remainder of the 2019-20 school year.  It would be wise to consider advancing those assessments or to reach out to parents now to make a plan for what will happen in the event of a school closure.  

Students in Out of District Placements 

Students with disabilities who have been placed in out of district placements, regardless of whether those are residential or day programs, will pose unique issues for school districts.  The Q&A makes it clear that if a residential facility closes, the local education agency remains responsible for addressing any educational needs of the students who were placed in that facility.  Special educators should be proactive now to reach out to any out-of-district program that is serving students with disabilities to discuss that facility’s closure protocol. School districts should also communicate with the parents of these students now to broach plans for serving these students in the event of a school closure.  Schools should also reach out to their attorneys for specific guidance on how to meet their legal obligations to students in out if district placements in these circumstances.  

As with any other areas possibly impacted by coronavirus, you should gather all of your vendor contracts to have a clear picture of the school’s and the vendor’s/provider’s obligations, rights, and responsibilities.  In the services context, you should be prepared to share your contract for services with your legal counsel to determine if it contains any provisions addressing closures, continuation or discontinuation of services during a closure, and others.

Early Childhood Services (Part C)

The Q&A specifically addresses early childhood services.  It noted that if the offices of the state lead agency closes, then Part C services will not need to be provided to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families during the closure.  Similarly, if the lead agency’s offices are open but the offices of the EIS program or provider in a specific geographical area are closed due to public health and safety concerns in that specific region, the EIS program or provider would not be required to provide services during the closure.  If the offices remain but services cannot be provided because the child is infected, the lead agency must ensure the continuity of services alternate means, such as consultative services to the parent.

Services to Students With Disabilities After School Resumes

Regardless of the services, if any, that a student with a disability receives during a school closure, special education staff must proactively gather data about the student when school resumes.  The Guidance repeatedly states that, in all cases, district staff will need to determine whether a student with a disability needs compensatory education to make up for any skills or services that may have been lost during the student’s absence or the school’s closure.  These services can be delivered by providing extended school-year services, extending the school day, providing tutoring before and after school, or providing additional services during regular school hours. The Q&A makes it clear that early childhood officials must similarly consider if a child’s service needs have changed or whether the child’s IFSP needs to be revised after services resume.  

Conclusion 

The best advice for special educators is to be proactive now.  Start thinking about whether your school will provide instructional services to all students during a pandemic closure, and consider the implications for special education students.  Reach out to case managers and service providers to get them thinking about how services could be designed for the students on their caseloads. Communicate with the parents of disabled students to see if you can reach agreement on what circumstances would trigger distance learning services or what services would be appropriate during a school closure.  The more school districts can plan ahead, the more likely we are to meet all of our legal obligations to students with disabilities if the novel coronavirus disrupts our school year.  

Keep Calm and Carry On

*******You will be able to find all of the guidance from KSB School Law, and it will be updated, at this site: https://www.ksbschoollaw.com/covid19*******

If you’ve caught the news, hopped on Twitter, or checked your email this week you know that more cases of COVID-19, commonly referred to as the coronavirus, are being reported worldwide.  As a result, schools are being urged again to review their preparedness for outbreaks of communicable disease. Fortunately, most schools already have policies in place that allow them to effectively respond to a pandemic.  Additionally, schools can look to their state educational agency for support in responding to this issue. For example, we’ve been communicating with the Nebraska Department of Education, which is working closely with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services to make resources and support readily available.  The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services is already providing the public its most up-to-date information at this site. 

With this foundation in place, the best thing you can do is keep calm, and use this opportunity to review your policies, consider your implementing procedures, and reassure your school community that you are monitoring the situation and prepared to respond as appropriate.  

Check Your Policies and Procedures

Most schools will already have policies in place that authorize school officials to exclude students, close school, or take other appropriate actions to respond to an outbreak of communicable disease. For our policy service subscribers, policies 3013 Emergency Closings, 3048 Communicable Diseases, and 6031 Emergency Exclusion provide this authority to the superintendent.  Policy 3048 Communicable Disease, best summarizes the superintendent’s authority and responsibility should the coronavirus require responsive action:

The superintendent will take appropriate measures if there is an epidemic or outbreak of a communicable disease which may include, but is not limited to, the emergency exclusion or alternative placement of students or the closure of a school building or the entire school district.   

As you review your policies, you should also consider what procedures you would follow to carry them out. We would also recommend that you identify who will be responsible for monitoring the developing information related to the spread of coronavirus and what resources will be relied upon, such as the Department of Health and Human Services.  

It is also important to take proactive steps to maintain health and peace of mind.  Remind your students and staff of the importance of good hygiene, and encourage those who are sick to remain home.  To that end, refresh yourself on your sick-leave and FMLA policies. Finally, remind your employees that a considerable amount of disinformation is shared during any public health emergency, and that they should seek out reliable sources of information that do not benefit from misrepresenting the facts (such as state and local health departments, the CDC, or the WHO.)

Communicate Effectively

In situations like these, we always recommend that schools communicate with the public about their proactive approach.  To help you do so, we’ve developed the following statement you can provide parents after reviewing your policies and, if necessary, updating them.

Dear Parents and Students,

The district is monitoring the developing information related to the spread of COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the coronavirus).  To date, the district is unaware of any native cases of COVID-19 being reported in our state. However, the district has reviewed its relevant policies and procedures and is confident that it is prepared to respond to any outbreak of communicable disease that may occur.  Should this situation interfere with the district’s ordinary operations or schedule, you will be provided notice in the customary fashion. 

We encourage you to remain informed about the spread of the coronavirus, and would recommend that you visit the website for the Department of Health and Human Services, found here, for further information as it develops.  We would also encourage you to use this opportunity to remind your students of the importance of getting rest and washing hands, especially during cold and flu season.  

You should hyperlink “here” to take readers to the relevant page from your state, and update the name of the respective agency as necessary.  For convenience, we’ve produced the links here:

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment:

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/2019-novel-coronavirus

Iowa Department of Public Health:

https://idph.iowa.gov/Emerging-Health-Issues/Novel-Coronavirus

Kansas Department of Health and Environment:

http://www.kdheks.gov/coronavirus/

Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services

http://dhhs.ne.gov/Pages/Coronavirus.aspx

South Dakota Department of Health:

https://doh.sd.gov/news/Coronavirus.aspx

Conclusion

We appreciate the apprehension many have regarding the coronavirus (trust us, we closely monitored both Shari and Karen for it.)* On the other hand, schools are regularly tasked with educating students in the midst of public health crises, and are well- equipped with the policies and experience necessary to respond appropriately.  Further, schools in Nebraska can be confident in making the best decision for students should the coronavirus require disruptions to the regular school schedule. We’ve conferred with Commissioner Blomstedt and the Nebraska Department of Education, and were assured that NDE would work with schools that suffer impediments to the provision of instructional hours as it has during previous emergencies.

If you have any questions about your school’s preparedness for the outbreak of communicable disease, we recommend you contact your school attorney, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan.  

*Editor’s Note: Don’t worry, both Karen and Shari tested negative!

Go Home, Rule 91…

The most recent changes to the Nebraska Department of Education's Rule 91, which governs driver qualifications and operational procedures for pupil transportation vehicles, became effective on February 5th.  The Department’s summary of the major revisions can be found here.  If you feel like you’re experiencing déjà vu, it's probably because Rule 91 was last changed effective July 1, 2019.  In fact, the most recent revisions were intended to ease the heightened training requirements imposed by the July 2019 changes.

 “Drivers of Small Vehicles for Activity Trips Only”

 For the last several months, Rule 91 required that all new drivers complete “Behind the Wheel” training, a Level 1 instruction course, and a physical examination to qualify to drive a pupil transportation vehicle.  These requirements made it difficult to arrange transportation for activity trips. To its credit, the Department was responsive to the resulting issues and initiated the process to revise the rules.

Those revisions affected sections 003.02C and 003.03 of Rule 91.  As of February 5th, drivers of small vehicles for activity trips only are no longer required to complete “Behind the Wheel” training, the Level 1 instruction course, or a physical examination.  However, all drivers are still required to complete the two-hour in-service training provided by the employer school.

So. . .  What’s Required Now?

Under Rule 91, all drivers are now required to complete the district’s two-hour in-service training.  This is the only requirement applicable to drivers of small vehicles who drive for activity trips only.  All other drivers must also meet the more robust qualification requirements.  

For drivers who have never before held a school bus permit, or have never met the requirements to qualify to drive a pupil transportation driver, Rule 91 requires that the individual:

• Complete “Behind the Wheel” training and a pre-service evaluation administered by a qualified driver.  (This training and evaluation requires that the individual hold a CLP Learner’s Permit for commercial vehicles.)

• Successfully complete a Level I Instructional Course by receiving at least the minimum score on the Level I Instructional Course Exam.

• Pass a prescribed physical examination administered by an approved medical examiner as documented by a valid Medical Examiner’s Certificate.  Each examination is valid for up to two years from the date of the exam.

For a driver to maintain their status as a qualified pupil transportation driver, Rule 91 requires that the individual:

• Pass a prescribed physical examination administered by an approved medical examiner as documented by a valid Medical Examiner’s Certificate.

• Complete, within five years of completing a Level I Instructional Course and within each subsequent five year period, a Level II Instructional Course.  If more than five years have passed since the individual last completed a Level I or Level II Instructional Course, the individual must again complete a Level I Instructional Course.

We thought it might be most useful to Nebraska educators if we summarized the various requirements in a table:

Conclusion

 With these changes, scheduling drivers for activity trips became a little easier again.  To summarize, drivers of small vehicles for activity trips only may now transport students after receiving the two-hour inservice training and instruction in emergency evacuation procedures, first aid, and other areas applicable to the relevant student group. If you have any questions about driver qualifications under Rule 91, or any other issue, we recommend you contact your school’s attorney, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan.

P.S. P.S.A. on the FMCSA

While we’re talking transportation, you should be aware that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is heightening its focus and enforcement on the policies and materials provided to drivers regarding drug and alcohol testing.  Over the last year, the FMCSA has begun to take the position that the school’s policy itself should include the entire laundry list of information required to be provided to drivers pursuant to 49 CFR § 382.601.

While we do not think that this is technically required by the regulations (which permit the information be included in materials provided to the drivers, such as by your testing agencies), our policy service subscribers can expect to see an update to Policy 4003 Drug Testing of Drivers when we release our annual updates this spring.  Our updated policy will ease compliance and conform with the FMCSA’s expectation that all information contemplated by the regulations be included in the policy itself.  If you’re not a subscriber, you should review your policies on drug testing of drivers and your practices related to distributing those policies. If you would like our assistance in reviewing and updating your policy in light of the recent enforcement activities, we would be happy to help.

Think Skinny! Effective “Communication Diets” and Limiting Parent and Patron Access to School Facilities and Communications Systems

Sometimes, the problems are with the adults...

As our country grapples with a mental health crisis, schools are asked to do more with less.  Not only are students’ needs putting a strain on school resources, but educators are spending more and more time responding to disruptive actions and ever-increasing communications from parents and patrons.  

When a non-student’s behavior interferes with the orderly operation of the school, it's important that administrators understand their authority and limitations when setting boundaries.  Administrators should feel empowered to set lawful boundaries and enforce them. Limiting or conditioning a disruptive individual’s access to school grounds, activities, and employees makes for a much more productive school environment.  In fact, courts around the country regularly uphold schools’ decisions to set such boundaries. 

Authority to Set Boundaries

While school grounds and school events are generally open to the public, schools can exclude anyone who is not suitable to be around students or who is disruptive to the orderly operation of the district.  See, e.g., Embry v. Lewis, 215 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2000).  No individual has a “right” to go upon the property of a public education institution.  To the contrary, as their own gatekeepers, schools have a substantial interest in avoiding liability by preventing harm to any of their students, faculty, or staff by refusing to allow disruptive, disorderly, or dangerous individuals from entering school grounds or activities.  See, e.g., A.W. v. Lancaster County Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010).  

So, what do you do when you have a disruptive parent or patron, or someone poses a possible risk?  Schools often issue a letter to the individual, prohibiting that individual from entering school grounds or activities without prior approval.  If the recipient disregards this directive, they are trespassing and law enforcement should be notified. We like spelling that out clearly in the letter.

Similarly, schools generally have no legal obligation, outside of unique areas like parent input for special education, to consider or respond to parent or patron communications.  Schools have a legitimate interest in limiting excessive, hostile, or intimidating communications so as to allow for efficient operations and to ensure school resources are appropriately expended towards the education of students.  The old adage about spending 90% of your time on 10% of your problems always comes to mind.  

Usually, when enforcing communications restrictions, it means that the district designates a single person as a point of contact to respond to communications from the individual at issue, and other school officials that receive communications will forward them to the contact person without responding. 

Legal Considerations

While schools have the right to exclude individuals from property or limit their communications with staff, they should be mindful of potential claims of retaliation.  This most often arises when a parent’s disruptive behavior or excessive communications related in some way to the services provided to a student with a disability.  

However, a school will not be found liable when it can demonstrate legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for taking action.  See, e.g., North Hills Sch. Dist., 118 LRP 12493 (SEA PA 2018) (no Section 504 violation when a school district limited a mother’s voluminous communications to a single point of contact); Spokane Int’l Acad., 118 LRP 45383 (OCR 2018) (parent’s aggressive, disrespectful conduct justified limitations on her access to campus and staff). This often requires sound documentation regarding the behavior at issue, why it was deemed disruptive, and how the school came to the decision that responsive action was necessary.  A zealous parent advocate is different than a hostile or aggressive and threatening parent, and your documentation and reactions must respect this difference.

The Ninth Circuit Abides

An excellent example came just a few weeks ago, when the Ninth Circuit released its opinion in L.F. v. Lake Washington Sch. Dist. #414.  In that case, L.F. and his spouse recently finalized a divorced. His daughters allegedly suffer from anxiety and behavioral disorders.  Due to his conduct, discussed below, L.F. was placed on a communication plan by his children’s school. The plan prohibited L.F. from directly contacting school staff, and instead called for communication to take place during biweekly meetings between L.F. and building administrators.  L.F. claimed the communication plan constituted retaliation against him for advocating for the Section 504 rights of his daughters. According to L.F., this also violated his First Amendment rights.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed.  The district produced evidence that the plan was not imposed because of L.F.'s advocacy for his daughter’s rights.  Instead, the plan was necessary because L.F. sent “incessant emails to staff accusing them of wrongdoing; making presumptuous demands; leveling demeaning insults,” and acted in an “aggressive, hostile, and intimidating manner” during face-to-face encounters. "[T]he Communication Plan addressed the manner in which L.F. communicated with the District -- not the content of his speech of any viewpoints he wished to convey," Judge Presnell wrote.

Further, the plan did not actually regulate L.F.'s conduct itself; L.F. continued to email staff members after the plan was imposed.  Instead, the plan regulated how the district would respond to L.F.’s communications. As the Ninth Circuit noted, “[M]embers of the public do not have a constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views. And the First Amendment does not compel the government to respond to speech directed toward it.”  L.F. ex rel. K.S.F. and K.S.F. v. Lake Washington Sch. Dist. #414, 120 LRP 1811 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted).

Parent Participation and the IDEA

Schools can also impose limitations on a parent’s access to campus and staff without violating the IDEA’s requirement that parents participate in the IEP process.  Under the IDEA, parent participation does not mean that a parent has a right to communicate at will with school staff, nor does it mean that a parent has a right to access school grounds at will.  

Instead, the IDEA specifically guarantees parents the right to participate in and receive notice of meetings regarding the provision of FAPE to their child.  A meeting does not include informal or unscheduled conversations. 34 C.F.R. § 300.501. So long as the district implements a plan that allows the parent meaningful participation in IEP meetings, it will not run afoul of the IDEA.  See, e.g., Seattle School District, 114 LRP 32867 (SEA Wa. 2014) (holding that a communication plan only invokes the IDEA if it inhibits meaningful participation as an IEP team member, and that a communication plan limiting parent communication to a single point of contact did not do so).

Conclusion

It’s unfortunate when schools must take time away from education to deal with the inappropriate behavior of adults.  Fortunately, courts recognize that schools must be able to take appropriate actions to address these situations. Schools have the authority to limit a disruptive individual’s access to school grounds, events, and employees.  This may take the form of a stay-away letter and a prohibition from school grounds, or a communication plan limiting the time and manner that a school will respond to a parent or patron. In any case, schools should always document disruptive behavior to safeguard against any claims that its actions were unreasonable.  

If your school needs help responding to a parent or patron’s disruptive actions or communications, we recommend you reach out to your school’s attorney or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan.