2022-2023 KSB Webinar Series!

The 2022-23 KSB School Law Webinar Series dates and topics are set!    

KSB QUARTERLY WEBINAR SERIES

Back and better than ever, with topics selected based on information from our surveys, these webinars offer a “deeper dive” which cannot always be easily covered in a conference breakout session.  As in the past these will be from 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM central.    Click here for the dates and topics (they're REALLY good this year, if we do say so ourselves….

ROOKIE AND REFRESHER SERIES

Last school year, KSB offered a series that we called the “Rookie and Refresher Series.”  Back by popular demand, these short webinars will focus each month on a key topic that we see administrators struggle with -- no matter how experienced they may be.  These sessions will be short, practical and to-the-point and will allow for at least 15 minutes of open question time for live participants.  This year we are offering Rookie and Refresher sessions for superintendents and business managers; special educators and principals.  

All sessions will be recorded, so you can watch them later if you have a conflict or go back to the recording and any materials for a refresher. 

Click below for information on each series:

Superintendents and Business Managers

Special Educators 

Principals 

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate and contact us at (402) 499-5655 or at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

2022-2023 South Dakota Webinar Series - Practical Pointers

KSB School Law is now offering a 2022-2023 webinar series for South Dakota Administrators called the “Practical Pointers Series” for  Superintendents, Principals, and Business Managers.  This series will cover both federal issues as well as legal issues specific to South Dakota. 

This webinar series is intended to offer something for everyone.  It comprises three separate segments with primary audiences of business managers, principals, and superintendents.  Administrators’ days are busy enough so we tailored the content to be as direct and practical as possible. However, all are welcome to attend any session, as we know the hats administrators wear can sometimes change from moment to moment! 

We will offer these webinars monthly, with each segment taking turns (e.g. principals won’t have two months in a row).  The webinars will be held every third Wednesday of the month from 9:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M.  These will be recorded and posted to a secure website so you can access them at any time, so no worries if you can’t make it live! 

The specific subjects we’ll cover are: 

Business Managers

  • Alpha and Omega: Beginning and End of Employment Documents - August 17, 2022

  • Floundering, Lost, Stumped, and Aggravated: That’s what FLSA stands for, right? - November 16, 2022

  • The FMLA: What your School Attorney Wants you to Know - April 19, 2023

  • Burning a Hole in Your Pocket: Procurement and Bidding - July 19, 2023

Principals

  • They Can’t Say That . . . Can They? - September 21, 2022

  • Checking Every Box: Student Discipline/Manifestation - December 21, 2022

  • April 15: The Day of Taxes and Non-Renewal Notices: Evaluations, Improvement Plans, and Terminations - March 15, 2023

  • Dealing with P*ssed Off Parents and Patrons:  June 21, 2023

Superintendents 

  • Open Meetings and Conflicts of Interest - October 19, 2022

  • What Your Business Manager Wants You to Know - January 11, 2023

  • Special Education Primer - February 15, 2023

  • Policy and Handbook Development - May 17, 2023

You can find more information about registration, pricing, and specific descriptions for each webinar at the signup page, located here.  Please reach out to Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler, or Sara with any questions! 

 

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

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

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

  • Coordinate with your Superintendent to ensure compliance with LB 644.

Statute sets September 5th as the deadline for subdivisions to provide a phone number and proposed tax request to the County Clerk if a joint public hearing is required.  For more information, see LB644.  KSB School Law also held a webinar on the new requirements on July 21.  A recording can be purchased (or if your superintendent participated in the webinar without you, you can access it for free) by contacting Shari at 402-804-8000 or sending an e-mail to ksb@ksbschoollaw.com. 

  • Ensure your sponsor/site program applications are submitted by August 15, 2022 for the upcoming school year.  Distribute free/reduced application packets to households during August.  A listing of important deadlines for the school lunch program can be found here

  • Discuss with district administrators possible trainings for staff.  

Consider the following: 

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

  • Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting

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

  • Staff Use of Social Media

  • Dating Violence

  • Suicide Prevention 

  • Seizure Awareness

  • Update personnel files for new hires.

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

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

  • COBRA initial notice - Upload new hire information into Payflex to ensure initial notices are sent out.  Initial notices must be given to covered  employees and their spouse (if applicable) within the first 90 days following coverage under the health plan.  Don’t forget to term exiting employees as well in Payflex to trigger qualifying event notices. 

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

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

  • Check on your teachers’ certificate renewals through NDE

School districts  should check the status of all pending certificates and contact your school attorney if there is any question about whether the renewal certificate will be issued before the September payroll processes. 

  • Consider budget development.  

September 30, 2022 is the new filing deadline for budget and LC-2 to NDE, Auditor of Public Accounts, and County Clerk.  For more information, visit the NDE school budget timeline

  • Make sure your labor law posters are up. 

In Nebraska, the following posters must be rightly displayed in an easily-viewed area in each workplace location.  The link takes you to the DOL website which includes the posters: 

  • Unemployment Insurance Advisement of Benefit Rights 

  • Nebraska Minimum Wage and Unemployment Insurance Advertisement of Benefits Rights.

  • Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC)

  • Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA)

  • Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

  • Employees Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA)

  • Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)

  • Review grant funding and liquidation of time restricted grants such as ESSER I, ESSER II, and ARP.  ESSER I funds must be liquidated by October 15, 2022.  ESSER II funds are available for obligation through September 30, 2023.  Remember that your safe return and ARP ESSER plans must be reviewed at least every 6 months, as well.  If the plans change or are updated, the public notice and input obligations apply, along with posting updated plans.

Technical assistance, allocation amounts, and additional information can be found here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Discuss with district administrators possible trainings for staff. 

Consider the following: 

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

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

  • Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting

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

  • Staff Use of Social Media

  • Update personnel files for new hires.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Check on your teachers’ certificate renewals on Teacher 411

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

  • Consider budget adoption and the levy request. 

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

  • Make sure your labor law posters are up. 

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

  • Reemployment Assistance Employee Notification Poster

  • Safety on the Job Posting Requirement

  • Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA)

  • Employees Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA)

  • Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC)

  • Job Safety and Health Protection (OSHA)

  • Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

  • Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)

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

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

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

Hot Off the Presses: Proposed Title IX Regulations Published in Federal Register

It’s now official – on July 12, 2022 the U.S. Department of Education officially published draft amendments to the Title IX regulations in the Federal Register.  This is an early step in the regulatory process that initiates a 60-day public comment period.  We anticipate that the Department will then review and respond to the comments it receives.  Based upon those comments, the Department may make further changes to the regulations.  Finally, the Department will publish final regulations and establish an effective date for compliance.  While we won’t know exactly what the final regulations will require, we now have several insights into what schools can expect.  

We’ll cover some of the highlights below, but we want to emphasize that the current process in the regulations will remain in effect until new regulations become effective.

An Expanded Definition of Sexual Harassment

Under the 2020 Title IX regulations, we’ve spent countless hours discussing whether certain sexualized misconduct falls within the definition of “sexual harassment” and, therefore, invokes the formal grievance procedures.  The proposed changes expand the scope and application of the Title IX regulations to address any “sex-based harassment.”  

Popular media outlets have focused on the fact that the proposed regulations expand on the previous definition of sexual harassment to explicitly include discrimination based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.  Practically speaking, an even more significant proposed expansion of the definition of sexual harassment is that the proposed regulations replace the 2020 standard of sex-based harassment (“severe, pervasive, AND objectively offensive”) with the broader Title VII standard (“severe OR pervasive”).  In other words, SPOO will become SORP (yay, more new acronyms!).

A Heightened Standard to Respond

If you’ve ever heard us talk about Title IX, you might remember hearing “deliberate indifference” over and over…and over.  For decades, courts imposed liability under Title IX only when the school acts with deliberate indifference when responding to known sexual harassment.  The 2020 regulations officially adopted this standard, which was a significant departure from standards previously used by entities like the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).  The proposed regulations appear to reject deliberate indifference in favor of a higher standard that requires schools to respond proactively to any sign of sex-based discrimination that creates a hostile environment.  This appears to harken back to an “old” standard (pre-2020), when schools could be found to be in violation of Title IX if they knew or should have known that sex harassment could be occurring, even if district staff do not have actual knowledge that sexual harassment has occurred.  This would also mean a return to the “bad old days” where OCR enforces a more strict and less clear legal standard than the federal courts impose.   

Return of the Single Investigator Model

The 2020 Amendments prohibited the Title IX Coordinator or investigator from also acting as the decision-maker.  In a change that most school districts would likely welcome, the proposed regulations would eliminate this categorical prohibition, relying instead on other procedures promoting the equitable treatment of all parties. 

Additional Considerations for Students with Disabilities

The proposed changes address how schools should navigate the difficult intersection between Title IX, the IDEA, and Section 504.  If a complainant or respondent is a student with a disability, the Title IX Coordinator has a responsibility to consult with that student's IEP team or Section 504 committee. 

What about sports and activities?  More to Come . . .

The Department also announced that it intends to take further action to address the participation of transgender students in extracurricular activities.  This may come in the form of formal guidance or proposed changes to the Title IX regulations related to sex-segregated programs and activities.  We’ll be sure to follow up with any updates on this front as they develop.  But the important takeaway is that the Department proposes to add terms like gender identity and sexual orientation to the general nondiscrimination obligations, yet they specifically chose not to address sports and activity participation in these regulations.  

For You Gunners

The full text of the proposed regulations can be found here. The US Department of Education also released a fact sheet on the draft rule as well as their summary of the draft rule’s major provisions.  For all you normal folks who just want to enjoy your summer, don’t worry.  KSB School Law will have plenty of follow up information as the regulations are finalized. 

Conclusion

The Biden Administration did not move to repeal the June 2020 regulations published under President Trump.  In fact, the published draft expands upon the federal government’s regulation of how schools respond to sexualized misconduct in the K-12 setting.  In other words, the work schools put into the 2020 amendments was not for naught, and schools must continue to adhere to the 2020 regulations until any changes become effective.  

Over the next several months, we’ll continue to monitor the regulatory process and provide updates about any significant developments.  In the meantime, if you have any questions about Title IX compliance now or in the future, don’t hesitate to reach out to Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler, or Sara at (402) 804-8000. You can also reach all of us at ksb@ksbschoolaw.com. 

LB 644 Webinar

Welcome to July! As Nebraska school superintendents continue to work on draft budgets and boards of education get ready to review and approve their superintendents work, the new requirements from LB 644 loom in the distance. We've been getting many questions on the legal requirements, timing, and practical reality of navigating this year's budget and tax asking processes, joint tax hearings, board meetings, etc. We figured now's the time before school starts and things really heat up to cover these issues and answer questions you have. We are planning a webinar covering LB 644, and here are the details:

Date: Thursday, July 21, 2022

Time: 9:00-11:00 AM Central Time

Location: Zoom (The presentation will be recorded and available if you can't make it or want to share it with your board or refer back to it)

Format: 1-1.5 hours of content covering all of the nuances and requirements of the law, followed by an open Q&A and participant discussion

Cost: $150 per school (regardless of number of attendees)

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

“A Quiet Prayer of Thanks”

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

(U.S. June 27, 2022)

For anyone who has attended any of our presentations or in-service training over the last few years on staff speech issues, you have no doubt heard about the legal saga of the “praying football coach” as his claims have made their way up, then down, and now back up again through the federal courts.  As promised, we have kept close tabs on what the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately had to say about Coach Kennedy’s case, which it did on June 27, 2022.

In an opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch for a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court held that Bremerton (Wash.) School District violated Kennedy’s First Amendment rights when it terminated him for engaging in what the Court characterized as kneeling at midfield after football games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks “while his students were otherwise occupied.”

“The Facts.”  We cannot overstate the importance of the majority’s view of the relevant facts on the outcome of the case.  The Court concluded that the school district disciplined Kennedy “only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his players after three games in October 2015.”

In other words, the facts relevant to the Court did NOT include a coach circling up his players to lead them in prayer or giving religiously-inspirational talks to the entire team (although there was some evidence of Kennedy engaging in similar practices in the past prior to what the majority viewed as the relevant events).  Thus, while we anticipate that many headlines that you will see will wrongly (in our opinion) imply that any coach can pray with his or her players at any time, that’s not really what the Supreme Court concluded.  Instead, it held that a school district cannot preclude a coach from saying a quiet, private prayer to himself when he is away from his players and otherwise able to do other personal things (like send a text or make a personal phone call) despite such prayers occurring on the 50-yard line of a football field after a game.

Establishment Clause Insufficient to Protect the School District.  The school district’s grounds for precluding Kennedy from praying at midfield immediately after the game were based on what the district understood to be required by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”), based on the Supreme Court’s earlier precedent.  In this case, the Kennedy Court explicitly overruled at least some of that precedent and concluded that a quiet, private prayer by a coach that did not involve students did not risk offending the Establishment Clause.  In light of the fact that the school district’s rules limiting Kennedy’s prayer were NOT neutral and generally applicable—in that they were specifically based, at least in part, on the religious character of Kennedy’s actions—then the school district’s actions were subject to the highest constitutional scrutiny, which they failed to survive.  As a result, the Court held that the school district violated Kennedy’s free exercise rights.

Freedom of Speech Claims Still Subject to Pickering-Garcetti.  In considering Kennedy’s free speech claim, the Court applied the Pickering-Garcetti test (that you have likely heard from us before) and concluded that Kennedy’s speech was private speech (not government speech) that was thus entitled to First Amendment protection.  The Court made clear that broad job descriptions or vague claims that an employee is “on duty,” by themselves, will not render a school employee’s actions as falling within the employee’s official duties when the school district permits school employees (during the same timeframe) to speak with a friend, call for restaurant reservations, check personal email, or attend to other personal matters.  In other words, school districts cannot claim that an employee is engaged in “official duties” as a basis to prevent that employee from exercising speech rights, while allowing other school employees to engage in private, personal actions in similar circumstances.  Basically, if coaches can make a personal phone call from the field as players mill about (such as to a spouse), you can’t say that’s acceptable but prayer is not.

As you can imagine, we’ll have more to say (LOTS!) when we present on this case and similar staff speech issues.  If between now and then you have any questions about this case or other First Amendment issues, please contact Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler, or Sara at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or (402) 804-8000.

E-I-E-I…EO! President Biden’s LGBTQI+ Executive Order

On June 15, 2022, President Biden released an Executive Order (EO) aimed at promoting equality for the LGBTQI+ community by addressing the disparities and barriers these individuals face across many societal contexts.  Specifically, the EO indicates a commitment to strengthening the supports and policies in schools and educational programming for LGBTQI+ students.  

Please note: This EO is NOT what we’ve been talking about regarding new Title IX regulations which, at least as forecast by the administration, could be released by the end of the month.  (Of course, those regulations were originally scheduled to be released in April 2022, so take the anticipated timeline for what it is worth.)  You’ve probably seen the “50 Years of Title IX'' information across social media, so perhaps the timing won’t be a coincidence.  We’ll certainly have an update if/when new Title IX regulations are released, but for now, we want to give you some initial thoughts on this newest EO concerning schools and LGBTQI+ considerations from the administration.

 To get first to what you are all wondering, the EO does not require any action by schools at this time.  Rather, it directs U.S. Secretary of Education Cardona to develop and release “sample policies” to support LGBTQI+ students' well-being and academic success.  The Department of Education is supposed to provide the sample policies within 200 days.  While nothing in the EO changes current laws, we have no doubt the Department of Education will encourage schools to adopt these policies.

 Secretary Cardona must also establish Working Groups regarding LGBTQI+ Students and Families.  These Working Groups will aim to develop and promote “guidance” around issues like bullying and harassment and identify practices to make health and mental health services accessible and inclusive.  There is also a focus on seeking funding opportunities for programming that will aid in improving those educational and health-based outcomes.  Finally, the EO addresses ways to provide more robust support services for LGBTQI+ students experiencing homelessness.

Overall, the EO highlights the administration's continued focus on promoting LGBTQI+ rights across not only the educational sphere but many other aspects of society.  There are no actionable items from the EO for school districts to take at this time, but stay tuned.  You probably recall the series of EO’s President Biden signed upon taking office addressing these issues, and this is another in the line of actions we expected to see form the administration.  Of course, if any new guidance or regulations have requirements for schools, we’ll keep you posted.  In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or (402) 804-8000.

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

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

Right to Access Education Records

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

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

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

Parental Participation Rights

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

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

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

Id. (Internal citations omitted). 

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

But What About Copyright Protections?

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

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

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

But I Thought Karen Said. . . 

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

Going Forward

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

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

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

Do you hear that? 

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

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

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

  • Seat newly-elected board members, 

  • Elect a board president and a vice president,

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

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

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

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

  • be printed in English,

  • contain at least four pages per issue,

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

  • have at least 200 paid subscribers, 

  • not consist of mostly advertisements, and

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

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

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

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

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

Hurry Up and Slow Down! An Update on Special Education Policies and Procedures

Last year, the Nebraska Department of Education released updated Guidance regarding the development of local special education policies and procedures.  Since then, we’ve had several schools ask whether they should, shouldn’t, or must update their special education policies and procedures to remain compliant.  As policy season looms, we wanted to get everyone on the same page about where things stand.

Your current special education policies and procedures are (probably) compliant.  

If you subscribe to our policy service or have purchased our special education procedures document, we are delighted to assure you that your current special education procedures are fully compliant with state and federal law.  The Department has confirmed this on numerous occasions since we last updated those policies in 2019.  And there haven’t been any relevant changes to the IDEA or Rule 51 since then.

Additionally, while defending clients from Rule 51 complaints we’ve reviewed the special education policies and procedures produced by the Perry Law Firm and believe they are also compliant.

So, if your school utilizes either of these policies and procedures and has kept them updated, you aren’t required to make any changes at this time.   However, if you hear anything differently from the Department or any other administrative agency, let us know.

So what’s the hubbub about?

The Department’s Guidance not only discussed the minimum requirements for policies and procedures, but also incorporated several suggestions and recommendations that the Department considers best practices.  As a result, unless you compare the Guidance with the text of the IDEA regulations and Rule 51, it can be difficult to distinguish between what is and isn’t required.  To make it even more complex, the recommendations call for the development of materials and resources that don’t look like the “procedures” most school districts are familiar with.  As a result, many in the educational community were concerned about the vast disparity between the (fully compliant) policies and procedures currently in use and the best practices and recommendations of the Department.

What’s wrong with best practices being incorporated into policies and procedures?

Nothing. . . if you live in a perfect world and follow them perfectly. On the other hand, if you incorporate best practices and recommendations into your policies and procedures and can’t adhere to them with complete fidelity, you could be unnecessarily exposing yourself to liability or a finding of noncompliance – even if you fully complied with Rule 51!  Remember, Rule 51 and the IDEA establish the floor for compliance, but you may heighten your obligations through the adoption of local policies and procedures.  As a result, we want to make sure that any policies and procedures are developed mindfully and in recognition of what is, and isn’t, required.

Stay tuned. . .

So, for now, it’s time to hurry up and slow down.  We’re wary that hasty changes to the policies and procedures will make compliance more difficult, rather than less.  We are in the process of working with NDE to create a set of “best practices” resources that we are comfortable providing to districts.  That additional resource will not be required but we are hopeful that it will be useful.  We will let our KSBlog subscribers know once we have these procedures developed and approved by NDE.

In the meantime, if you have any questions, don’t hesitate to send us an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler or Sara at (402) 804-8000.

P.S. Without much fanfare, changes to the transition requirements in Rule 51 were signed by the Governor, approved by the Attorney General, and went into effect on May 17, 2022.  The most up-to-date version of the rule can be accessed here.  Under the new changes, school districts must develop and include transition plans into the IEP of all students “beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 14.”  This change to Rule 51 was necessary to bring the rule into alignment with the change to state law that the Unicameral made last year. 

P.P.S. We have had several policy service subscribers ask when our 2022 policy updates will be out.  They may be distributed as early as next week, but our hard deadline is that you will have them no later than May 31.  We are excited to show our subscribers the cool new interface that we are launching!  You will also all be THRILLED to know that this year there are not a ton of required updates.  Our policy subscriber webinar is June 9, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. CST.  

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

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

Free Speech For Me or For Thee? 

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

A Two-Part Test

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

To determine whether an employee is speaking as a private citizen, the fact that an employee is at the workplace is not necessarily dispositive.  Instead, the court will look to whether the employee spoke pursuant to their official duties (which is, of course, more likely in the workplace).  Courts generally  construe a teacher’s “official duties” as applying to all interactions with students and colleagues in relation to school matters or activities. Under the Garcetti case, if an employee is speaking pursuant to his or her official duties the speech is not protected, in large part because the employee is not speaking as a private citizen.  Nebraska has state statutes which affirm this concept for public employees.

To determine whether an employee is speaking about a matter of public concern, courts look at the “content, form, and context” of the statement, along with the employee’s motive in making the statement.  Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).  Speech related to a subject that would be of public concern is not protected if the expression addresses only the personal effect upon the employee, or if the only point of the speech was to further some purely private interest.  This means that if an employee speaks out of private interest about a personal grievance with school administrators, the speech is not protected under the First Amendment.  This is true even though the public has an interest in the administration of the school district, and even if the statement is not made pursuant to the employee’s official duties.

But Don’t Engage in Viewpoint Discrimination. . .

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

Changes Coming?

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

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

What Were You Saying About Ethical Regulations? 

In Nebraska, certificated employees are governed by Rule 27 of the Nebraska Department of Education.  Teachers and administrators who violate Rule 27 risk losing their teaching certificate, among other possible discipline.  Several of the standards in Rule 27 prevent a staff member engaging in political or partisan activity at school:

  • The educator shall permit the student to pursue reasonable independent scholastic effort, and shall permit the student access to varying viewpoints.  (004.03A).

  • The educator shall not deliberately suppress or distort subject matter for which the educator is responsible.  (004.03B).

  • The educator shall not use institutional privileges for private gain or to promote political candidates, political issues, or partisan political activities.  (004.04B).

  • The educator shall, with reasonable diligence, attend to the duties of his or her professional position.  (004.04F).

  • The educator shall use time on duty and leave time for the purpose for which intended.  (004.06G).

  • The educator shall allow others who hold and express differing opinions or ideas to freely express such ideas.

  • The educator shall not show disrespect for or lack of acceptance of others.  (005.09C). 

Nebraska’s Political Accountability and Disclosure Act

If professional consequences weren’t enough, any school employee who engages in political activities while working for a school or using school resources (like their school-issued computer) can violate Nebraska’s Political Accountability and Disclosure Act.  Section 49-14,101.02(2) makes clear that a school official or employee may not use personnel, resources, property, or funds under his or her official care and control for the purpose of supporting a political candidate or a ballot issue.  “Candidate” and “ballot issue” are defined broadly and include most candidates for state and federal office and issues that may show up on the ballot.  The Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission (Commission) has explained that this means a school employee may not engage in political activity during office hours or while otherwise performing their duties.  The Commission has fined school employees and other public employees for violating these prohibitions.

Conclusion

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

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

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

Free Speech For Me or For Thee?  

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

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

A Two-Part Test

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

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

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

But Don’t Engage in Viewpoint Discrimination . . .  

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

Changes Coming?

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

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

What Were You Saying About Ethical Regulations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Friday 2022 Q&A

Q: What is the deadline for telling probationary teachers in Nebraska that we are not renewing their contract?

A: April 15

Q: What is the deadline for telling tenured teachers in Nebraska that we are terminating their contracts?

A: April 15

Q: What is the deadline for issuing notice of reduction in force to teachers in Nebraska?

A: April 15

Q: Are you saying April 15 is an important deadline for Nebraska school districts?

A: April 15 is THE deadline by which school administrators must decide whether they want to proceed with the non-renewal or termination of a certificated employee's contract.  

Q: Are teachers obligated by the April 15 deadline as well?

A: Yes.  This is a mutual deadline between districts and their certificated staff.  The Professional Practices Committee and the Nebraska Commissioner of Education have determined that teachers are contractually obligated for the following school year after April 15, unless:

  1. The teacher has submitted a resignation prior to April 15, or

  2. The board, through policy or provision in its negotiated agreement has agreed to release teachers through a later date.  

Q: Doesn’t April 15 fall on Good Friday this year?  What if we don’t have school?

A: Yes, April 15 falls on Good Friday this year.  Practically, that means your deadline this year may be April 13 or April 14, depending on your school calendar.  The fact that you do not have school on April 15 will not extend your deadline.

Q: What happens if I do nothing? 

A: If you do nothing, all principal and teacher contracts automatically renew.  Unless staff members receive notice on or before April 15 that the board will consider non-renewing, terminating, or amending their contracts, they stay on their current contract.  Please note: this also applies to reductions in force. 

Q: What happens if I miss the deadline?

A: The employment contract renews.  The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that notice even one day late is insufficient notice under the law.  Bentley v. School District No. 25 of Custer County, 255 Neb. 404 (1998),

Q: What about March 15th?

A: What about it?
Q: There’s something about March 15th…

A: Yes, but it’s not a deadline.  Teachers cannot be required to sign a renewal agreement or contract before March 15th.  So think of March 15 as a floor, and April 15 as a ceiling.   

Q: What if I’m not sure about a staff member, or not sure how to issue a notice of non-renewal, termination or cancellation?

A: If you have any questions or reservations about a teacher's continued employment, we recommend that you consult with your favorite KSB attorney by calling 402-804-8000 or emailing us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.         

Q: Which member of the KSB crew can eat the most saucy nugs in one sitting?

A:This is the subject of an unwise bet on Bobby’s part. A challenge will be completed soon. The smart money is on our law clerk, Aaron, with Ashley as a dark horse (sorry, Bobby and Jordan!)

Board Meetings Gone Wild

We’ve all been in heated meetings in which board members vehemently disagree with one another.  What happens if the heat doesn’t dissipate when the meeting ends?  Does a school board violate the First Amendment if it censures an unruly member?  Last week, the Supreme Court answered no.  Under this new case,  federal law allows such censure of a board member when he engages in conduct that disrupts the efficient operation of the board. 

Don’t Be This Guy. . .

David Wilson served on the Houston Community College System Board of Trustees.  In 2017, the board adopted a censure motion chastising Wilson for acting in a manner “not consistent with the best interests of the College or the Board, and in violation of the Board Bylaws Code of Conduct.”  Prior to the censure motion, Wilson voiced his concerns about the board through:

  • Publicizing funding complaints;

  • Robocalls;

  • A radio interview;

  • Lawsuits;

  • Hiring a private investigator to confirm another board member resided in the district; and

  • Maintaining a website stating his concerns that the board was not acting in the best interest of HCC.

The censure resolution called for Wilson to “immediately cease and desist from all inappropriate conduct” and stated, “any repeat of improper behavior by Mr. Wilson will constitute grounds for further disciplinary action by the Board.”

Wilson sued on the ground that the censure violated his First Amendment rights.  On March 24, 2022, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the First Amendment does not restrict the authority of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in response to a member’s speech.

What Does This Mean For You? 

In determining that Wilson lacked a cognizable First Amendment claim, the Supreme Court focused on two main considerations. 

  1. First, the Court noted that elected bodies from the local level all the way up to Congress have long exercised the power to censure their members. 

  2. Second, for Wilson’s First Amendment retaliation claim to succeed, he would have had to show materially adverse action that would not have been taken absent retaliatory motive.

Translation: Censure is a common way for boards to deal with member misbehavior.  Instead of being a materially adverse retaliatory action, the HCC Board’s verbal censure was an exercise of its own freedom of speech.

“Our Case is a Narrow One”

The Supreme Court’s ruling only applies to the censure of one member of an elected body by the other members. Censure alone, without expulsion, exclusion, or any other punishment, does not violate the First Amendment.  However, if a board were to include additional punishments along with the censure, or were to censure someone outside of the board, it may be subject to a First Amendment retaliation claim.  To that end, the Court noted that boards should not feel free to similarly censure students or employees without risking a First Amendment violation.  The ruling only applies to board members.  

Conclusion

With the Supreme Court taking an interest in closely scrutinizing the First Amendment doctrines most relevant to schools, we understand that these issues have only gotten more pressing and confusing.  If your board or district is facing difficult First Amendment issues, don’t hesitate to send us an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler or Sara at (402) 804-8000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. What’s the biggest takeaway?  

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

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

Who Wants to be A Millionaire?! Selling Teacher Produced Resources under the Copyright Act

Late last month, Teachers Pay Teachers (TPT), was in the news with the release of its February 2022 State of Education Report.  In that report, TPT noted that it has developed “a global community of over 7 million teachers, including more than 85% of PreK-12 teachers in the U.S.”  However, before distributing materials on this and similar sites, teachers should know they may not have the right to do so, even in the works they create.

The 1976 Copyright Act and Works Made for Hire

Under the 1976 Copyright Act, the person that creates a work is generally considered the author and copyright owner.  However, there is an exception to this general rule for works made for hire.  Importantly, all works “prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment” are works made for hire under the Copyright Act.  For works made for hire, the employer is the owner of the copyright unless both parties involved have signed a written agreement to the contrary. 17 U.S.C. § 201(b). The rationale behind the “works made for hire” doctrine is that when an employer hires an employee to create a copyrightable work, the fruits of the employee’s endeavors properly belong to the employer.

This means that a teacher does not own the copyright of any materials he or she prepares within the scope of his or her employment with the district, unless there is a written agreement between the parties to the contrary.  While the work for hire analysis can be complicated in some situations, it is usually quite straightforward regarding most materials that coaches and teachers create.  Generally, the lesson plans, course materials, tests, and quizzes that a teacher creates are works made for hire.  See Shaul v. Cherry Valley-Springfield Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. 2004) (holding that lesson plans and other teaching materials produced by a teacher were the property of the employer school district, and noting that the broad nature of a teacher’s employment responsibilities causes most materials a teacher will produce to fall within the scope of a work made for hire.) Similarly, the plays, gameplans, and scouting reports created by coaches within the scope of their position will also be works made for hire.

Relevantly, the copyright owner of a work has the exclusive rights to: reproduce and make copies of the original work; prepare derivative works based upon the original work; and distribute copies of the original work to the public by sale, transfer, rental, lease, or lending.  17 U.S.C. § 106.

But Isn’t There a Teacher Exception?

Prior to the 1976 Copyright Act, some courts found there was an exception to the usual works made for hire doctrine of copyright law when academic materials were produced by those employed by schools.  However, this exception was not included in the Copyright Act, and several courts have held that the “teacher exception” did not survive the legislation.  

Mo’ Money Mo’ Problems

When a work falls within the definition of a work made for hire, copyright interests vest in the employer.  This means that schools maintain the exclusive rights to most materials teachers prepare, and that only the school district may reproduce or distribute the materials.  As a result, unless the educator has a written agreement with their employer stating otherwise, the educator cannot sell or share the course materials, lesson plans, or related works they create.  To do so would constitute copyright infringement and expose the teacher to liability to their employer which could recover the money derived from selling or sharing the work or statutory damages.  This is why most school boards have a policy on how and when materials owned by the district can be shared (such as with ESU workgroups).

Plenty of Risk to Go Around

Not only are educators at risk if they attempt to sell or share resources they do not have rights to, but educators infringe on a copyright when they copy, reproduce, or distribute works they receive from a source without proper distribution rights.  Educators also infringe on a copyright when they exceed the scope of the license they receive from a bona fide seller, like a textbook provider.  We recommend any users of these educational resource providers carefully review the agreements and representations associated with the service, and take steps to ensure they are receiving materials from reputable sources with appropriate distribution rights. 

Hopefully, this information didn’t put too large of a dent in your retirement plan.  If your school has any questions about copyright issues, or something more fun, please don’t hesitate to send us an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com, or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Tyler, or Sara at (402) 804-8000.

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

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

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

What has passed (so far):

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

What has failed:

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

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

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

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

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

What remains:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surety Bonds? Blanket Bonds? Fidelity Bonds? What’s with All the Bonds???

We have had several clients report that they have received requests under Nebraska’s Public Records Act from people seeking a long list of various types of bonds and insurance policies.  The letters are based on a suggested format from a national website

Do Not Panic.   Despite the fact that the letters refer to two Nebraska statutes, the letters also request numerous documents which Nebraska school districts are not required to have.  If you look down the list of requested documents and you know that you do not possess many of these documents, that does not mean that your district has done anything wrong.

Call Your Lawyer.  As we noted above, these letters are based on samples from a nationwide website that mixes and matches laws from numerous states as well as federal and even international law.  We think most public records requests can be handled locally.  However, we believe this specific request will likely require you to get help from your school district’s attorney to formulate a compliant response.    

Response Within Four Business Days.   The Public Records Act states that if the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within four business days “due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request,” you can instead communicate back to the requester.  That communication should include a written explanation of why, including the earliest practicable date for fulfilling the request, an estimate of the expected cost of any copies, and an opportunity for the requester to modify or prioritize the items within the request.

Fees for Gathering and Copying These Documents.  As we read these requests, we believe it is highly possible that you will have to expend significant staff time in responding to these requests. Nebraska law allows you to charge for staff time in responding to public records requests after the first four hours.  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712(3)(c).  Alternatively, if you have to pay a third party to find and produce documents, you can charge for all of that additional expense.  You may also charge a fee for your actual costs (e.g. copying, printing, computer analysis) in responding.  You are, however, prohibited from charging the requester for the cost of your attorney reviewing the public records response.  

Deposit.  You may request a deposit prior to producing the records if you reasonably calculate that the total fee (including copying, staff, and contractor costs) for providing the records would exceed $50.00.  The person making the request will then have 10 days either to narrow the scope of the request or to provide you with the requested deposit.

And one more thing . . . Although these public records requests will require time and effort to respond, we want the education community to be cautious in the conversations we have about them. The public policy of our state gives people the right to request these documents. We certainly do not want to discourage school district patrons from being interested in the operation of their local schools. We also want to make sure that schools scrupulously comply with the letter of the law in responding to these requests. If you have any questions or concerns about navigating requests under Nebraska’s Public Records Act, feel free to call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Tyler, Sara, or Jordan, or email all of us using ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

All’s Fair in Food and FERPA: What, exactly, is directory information?

At KSB, we recommend sharing wings, pretzel bites, and queso with the table.  We only share beer with those we love.  We advise sharing students’ personally identifiable information (“PII”) with no one.  But is there any time when PII is as shareable as cheese curds?  You bet.  Today’s post gives you a taste for a key ingredient of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) - the directory information exception. 

While schools must obtain prior written consent from a parent before releasing most PII, directory information may be released without consent under certain conditions.  The most important condition is that you have a policy outlining your approach to directory information.  But we’re getting ahead of ourselves…

What is directory information? 

The FERPA regulations define directory information as information contained in an education record that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed.  If you’re anything like us, “would not generally be considered” are five of the worst words in the English language when federal funding is at stake.  Unless the Department of Education wants administrators to be stingier with PII than Steve Williams is with his lava cake, let’s reduce the ambiguity please.  Thankfully, the Department of Education is kind enough to specify the following PII as directory information:

  • Names

  • Addresses

  • Telephone listings

  • Email addresses

  • Photographs

  • Dates and places of birth

  • Major fields of study

  • Grade level

  • Enrollment status

  • Dates of attendance

  • Participation in officially recognized activities and sports

  • Weight and height of members of athletic teams

  • Degrees, honors, and awards received

  • The most recent educational agency or institution attended.

On the other hand, social security numbers are never directory information.  Likewise, be cautious with student ID numbers.  We recommend sticking to the list above.  If you have a unique issue, it is best to discuss it with your school lawyer. 

Let’s return to that important condition that must be met before you can release directory information without prior written consent…  

When can you share directory information?

Remember when your mom made brownies, but you had to ask your dad if he wanted to keep them before bringing them to your friend’s party?  That’s how we think of the directory information exception.  The most important condition you must meet before sharing directory information is giving parents public notice of your policy on the disclosure of such information.  Unless the student is 18, the parents own student PII.  If dad wants to keep all 14 brownies home, they will never see the light of day.  If mom or dad wants to keep the middle pieces, your friend Suzie can only have an overbaked corner and a chipped tooth.

It’s the same way with directory information.  First, your policy must describe what types of PII you have designated as directory information.  Next, the policy must state that parents can opt out of the disclosure of directory information.  This part can be confusing.  Parents have a right to opt out of disclosure of “any and all” directory information.  Some schools choose to allow opt-outs from specific categories of directory information. For example, under the “buffet” approach mom and dad may allow you to share Billy’s name but not his address.  Other schools take the position that if a parent opts out of any directory information, they are treated as having opted out of all of it.  Still other schools have “opt in” procedures, rather than opt out procedures, which require the parents to consent in advance to sharing of any directory information.  We strongly discourage our client schools from using an opt in system.  It’s hard enough to keep track of who can be in what class photo when parents opt out.  We don’t think you should make it even harder to take the football and volleyball team photos in August by having to wait until every parent signs a consent form.

For schools that allow parents to opt out of disclosure of directory information by category, note that there is an additional limit to a parent’s control.  If a parent wants Henry’s name on the football roster, the honor roll, and in the yearbook without having to give prior written consent, then that parent must allow you to consider Henry’s name directory information.  We like the all in or all out system rather than a piecemeal, but for schools who allow parents to opt out of certain categories, they cannot limit recipients within a category.  A parent cannot opt out of only a single medium, such as the local paper with the pesky reporter who said number 12 threw a bad interception.  

Finally, the policy must specify the period within which a parent has to notify you in writing that he or she does not want directory information about their student disclosed.  Obviously this only applies to schools using an opt out system for directory information.  In short, parents have the right to opt out of any PII being disclosed as directory information for their student.  If they opt out, then you cannot release that directory information unless you have prior written consent from the parent. 

Remembering the difference between Steve’s lava cake and shareable cheese curds. 

Your instinct is to lock up your students’ PII and label it Fort Knox.  That is not necessary with directory information.  Whenever you have a question about releasing PII, ask yourself:

  • Is it considered by the Department of Education to be directory information? 

  • Is it listed in your policy as directory information?

  • Have you distributed your policy to parents, clearly communicated the opportunity to opt out (or in…sigh…), and included the time in which the opt out (or in) must occur?  

  • Have the student’s parents opted out of the type of directory information in question? 

Maintaining good records is your first defense against a FERPA complaint.  If you have questions about what you should include in your directory information policy or are worried about a particular information release, don’t hesitate to call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Tyler, Jordan, or Sara at (402) 804-8000, or shoot all of us an e-mail at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.