LB 841: A Fundamental Shift for Nebraska that will Hurt Students, Families and Communities

We rarely ring alarm bells during a legislative session.  The Nebraska education community has excellent legislation trackers that keep you all informed of what the Unicameral is doing.  We are making an exception and ringing the alarm about LB 841, which recently advanced out of the education committee.  Every member of Nebraska’s education community needs to be aware that LB 841 would dramatically change how special education decisions are made in Nebraska schools.  As currently drafted, the bill requires parental consent before ANY change is made to a student’s IEP.  This is not required by the IDEA.  Nor is it a narrow procedural adjustment.  It would affect daily decisions about services, staffing, and student safety.  Because of the scope of this proposed change, educators and families should understand what is at stake before the Unicameral takes further action.  

LB 841, is a short bill, with a significant impact.  In simple terms it requires parental consent before schools can implement any change to a special education student’s IEP. 

Think back to your 3 most contentious IEP team decisions, and now imagine how they play out under a system where you can’t implement ANY changes without consent.   If a district wants to change an IEP and a parent disagrees, the district would have to sue the parent in an administrative hearing to make the change.  In practice, this means even routine decisions could require litigation if a parent is unreasonable or intractable.  For example:  

• Reducing speech services from 20 minutes to 15 minutes per week, based on documented progress;

• Increasing paraprofessional support during a transition from elementary to middle school; or

• Moving a violent student from the general education classroom to the resource room to keep peers safe.

Under LB 841, any of these decisions could be blocked by a single angry or frustrated parent.  Schools would then be forced to either ignore the expertise of their educators or pay lawyers to go to a hearing to fight for the team’s decision. 

This would be a huge change in how special education operates in Nebraska.  Current law requires parental consent at key points, such as initial evaluations, initial services, and the decision to decline services.   Outside of those circumstances, schools are responsible for making educational decisions necessary to provide a free appropriate public education.  After all, parents already have the right to meaningfully participate in IEP meetings and the IEP team must consider parental input as part of the team’s decision-making process.  LB 841 would expand consent requirements far beyond what is required by federal law, effectively giving parents veto power over every single educational decision made by educational experts for special education students. 

A few other states have enacted laws like LB 841 with disastrous results.  Florida offers a cautionary tale.  Florida law requires parental consent before a student can be placed in a level 3 behavior program.  In Florida (as in Nebraska), parental rights transfer to students when they turn 18.  The Florida law requiring parental consent, like that proposed in LB 841, meant that the 19-year old student who committed the tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 students and staff had the right to refuse (and had refused) the school district’s attempts to place him in a specialized program to address his mental health needs.  

This tragic example underscores the broader concern with LB 841.  It will hamstring school administrators who are constantly required to nimbly and quickly address significant threats to the health and safety of the school community.  Under LB 841, if a parent disagrees with a school’s placement of a violent student in a specialized program, schools will be required to either accept the status quo or file for due process to implement the change.  

Proponents of this bill pitched it as a way to promote educational continuity for military families.  That is a worthwhile goal, but one that can be addressed without completely restructuring how every special education decision in the state of Nebraska gets made.  LB 841 is not limited to military families, and its requirements would apply to every IEP decision for every special education student in every school district across the state.  

Current law already requires meaningful parental participation and provides parents with multiple avenues to challenge IEP decisions.  These include the right to request mediation, file a state complaint, or initiate due process.  At the same time, schools remain legally responsible for ensuring that each special education student receives a free appropriate public education.  LB 841 would shift that balance by requiring schools to initiate legal action before implementing changes the school thinks are necessary.   Schools already get sued for doing exactly what a parent asks if it’s not educationally appropriate for the child.  Under LB 841, schools could also be sued for not suing the family soon enough.  

The only thing that LB 841 will accomplish for sure is to provide more work for trial lawyers.  New Hampshire, Kansas, and Virginia have state laws that give parents the right to veto some IEP decisions.  Compare the number of due process cases litigated in those states to the number currently litigated in Nebraska: 

Image Credit: Underlying data is taken from https://cadreworks.org/national-state-dr-data-dashboard. 

LB 841 would go even further than the laws in Virginia, New Hampshire, and Kansas.  If LB 841 becomes law, Nebraska schools can expect increased legal costs and additional demands on staff time.  Schools will have to pay school lawyers like us to litigate many, many more cases.  And that cost will not be part of your special education budget - the cost will be passed directly on to your local taxpayers.  If you have been part of a due process proceeding, you know that not only is it expensive in terms of cost; it is also expensive in the long-term toll it puts on staff, district, and parental dynamics.
As school leaders, your voice matters in this conversation.  LB 841 would directly impact your ability to serve students, maintain safe learning environments, and manage limited resources.  These impacts extend beyond special education and will impact the broader school community.  No one wins in a system that rewards the most combative, unreasonable, or misguided parents at the expense of the educational services provided for all other students.  We encourage you to contact your senators and share how this bill would affect your district’s operations, staff, and students.  Here at KSB, we have drafted some talking points to facilitate a conversation with your senator, and we can provide them to you free of charge upon request.  Just shoot us an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

Gun Threats and SDCL 22-8-13: What South Dakota Administrators Should Know

March Madness can bring out the best and the worst in all of us.  Threatening to turn off the TV after that one bad call or promising to never watch a game again, trust us, we’ve been there.  In schools, however, threats—especially threats of violence—are not taken lightly.

A recent South Dakota Supreme Court decision provides important insight for schools responding to threats of violence.  In In the Interest of J.A.D., 2026 S.D. 11, the Court reviewed a case involving a student who told a school staff member he could access guns and threatened to “shoot you and everybody in the school.”  The student exited the school after this threat, prompting the school to immediately implement a soft lockdown and contact law enforcement.

The Court ultimately affirmed the student’s adjudication for making a terrorist threat under SDCL 22-8-13, emphasizing that threatening to commit a crime of violence with intent to disrupt a public service can satisfy the statute.  A school qualifies as a public service, and the lockdown implemented in response to the threat supported the court’s finding.

In the case, the student argued that the statements were not intended as a real threat and were instead made to get out of school or to escape the situation.  However, school staff testified that the student had previously tried to leave school using other tactics and that his demeanor during this incident was noticeably different—quiet, flat, and more serious than in past situations.  The Court concluded the evidence supported the guilty adjudication. 

What this means for school administrators:

• Students claiming “I was just joking” can still be subject to disciplinary consequences for disrupting school.  Schools in South Dakota may discipline students for conduct that is “violent or aggressive” and that “disrupts school or that affects a health or safety factor” of the school.  In our view, this case supports the position that threats–even when claimed to be jokes–can be inherently disruptive to the school environment.  Although the facts of this case arose on campus, the same authority can extend to off-campus conduct,  which is where many threats now occur. 

• Documentation and staff observations can be important.  Testimony about a student’s demeanor, past behavior, and the school’s response can play a role in how courts evaluate these cases.

• The case reinforces the role of schools in responding to safety concerns.  Prompt action and communication with law enforcement are consistent with how courts expect threats to be handled.

• Education and prevention play a role.  Clear communication through handbooks, safety training, and classroom discussions can help students understand that threats of violence are not harmless statements and may result in legal consequences.  

To help schools navigate these problems, KSB offers digital citizenship training for students, staff, and parents.  We also offer student discipline template documents that assist administrators when they draft notices that must meet specific legal requirements for more serious offenses. 
We hope the only drama you experience this March is in your tournament bracket.  But as always, if you have questions about the resources above, or about anything else, please reach out to ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

Luck of the IDEA: Navigating the 21 vs. 22 Decision

March is here.  Brackets are about to come out.  (Duke? Michigan?)  Office pools are forming.  (Maybe we should invite school administrators to join our KSB pool?)  And across Nebraska, administrators are starting to notice something else creeping up on the calendar: students approaching age 21.  

If you’ve looked at the 21 vs. 22 services question lately and thought, this feels less predictable than filling out a March Madness bracket, you’re not wrong.  We know many districts are asking the same question: What exactly are our obligations right now?  And if the answer seems murkier than it did a year ago, that is because it is. 

The Legal Background

On May 30 of last year, the Nebraska Department of Education issued a decision from a due process hearing officer concluding that Nebraska law required a district to provide special education services to a student until her 22nd birthday. 

The Department of Education has taken the position that the decision applies only to that individual student. It has advised school districts to continue dismissing students from special education at the end of the school year when they turn 21. 

Parents of students turning 21 have strongly disagreed. In December, a group of parents filed a class action lawsuit against the Nebraska Department of Education seeking a ruling that students must receive FAPE until age 22. The Department has filed a motion to dismiss, and the parents have filed their response. 

What This Means for Districts  

In short, the law is unsettled. Federal litigation rarely moves quickly, and this issue will not be fully resolved before the end of the school year. 

Unfortunately, districts do not have the luxury of waiting for the courts. Summary of Performance meetings and IEP reviews for these students are happening now. Districts will need to choose how to proceed, and each option carries different legal considerations. 

Special Rookies & Refreshers “Bonus” Session

Because we anticipated this issue early in the school year, we scheduled a bonus session as part of our Special Education Rookies and Refreshers webinar series. Given the number of questions we are receiving, we have decided to open this session to any Nebraska school district that would like guidance. 

During this one-hour webinar, we will cover:

• The due process decision issued last spring

• The Nebraska Department of Education’s current position

• The status of the pending federal litigation

• Practical options for handling students who have turned, or soon will turn, 21

Participants will also receive sample documentation to accompany the various possible approaches and the legal risks associated with each. 

When Is It? 

Tuesday, March 17, 2026

12:00–1:00 PM Central Time

Live on Zoom

The session will also be recorded for districts that cannot attend live or would like to share the recording internally.

Cost

For districts not enrolled in the Rookies & Refreshers series, the cost is $150 per district. To register, click here. 

If you already have signed up for Special Ed Rookies and Refreshers, this session is free of charge, and you do not need to register.  If you have any questions, please email shari@ksbschoollaw.com.

LB 653: Option Enrollment and Student Discipline Act Changes

Every legislative session starts the same way: a stack of education bills, a lot of confident predictions, and absolutely no agreement about what will actually happen.

But here’s one thing we already know about this session.  Schools are going to have homework.

Your first assignment is  LB 653, which will become effective on July 17 (assuming the session adjourns on time).  LB 653 makes meaningful changes to option enrollment and the procedures that you must follow under the Student Discipline Act.

Option Enrollment Changes.  Once effective, LB 653 will require school districts to “automatically accept applications for siblings of option students enrolled in the option school district without regard to capacity limitations.”  Obviously, this change will affect how you accept or reject option applications, and school boards will need to update their board policies on option enrollment and board resolutions setting various capacities for option students.  

Even though LB 653 will not be law until this summer, school administrators should be proactive in assessing the implications of LB 653 as they review option applications this spring.  KSB full policy service subscribers: check the portal for a memo that gives you actionable advice on how to respond to option applications now that LB 653 has passed but before this year's policy updates go out.

Student Discipline Act Changes.  The other main component of LB 653 concerns changes to the Nebraska Student Discipline Act.  For example, there are changes to the circumstances under which you can suspend certain students and new requirements to provide certain written notices earlier in the student discipline process.  More than mere technical paperwork, these changes will require your administrators to consider your practices in responding to incidents of student misconduct in light of the new mandatory procedures.  

Thankfully, these changes should not affect your discipline decisions until next school year.  We will be hosting a Student Discipline Workshop to bring attendees up to speed on these new requirements and to refresh best practices to student discipline.

If you have any questions about LB 653, option enrollment, or student discipline, please do not hesitate to reach out to Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, Sara, or Amanda at (402) 804-8000 or all of us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com. 

March Madness: Student Discipline That’s Ready for 2026–27

We know it’s early, but if you have opened a legislative update this session and thought, here come updates to our policies, handbook, and forms, you’re right.  While there’s just under half the session remaining, LB 653 is already over the finish line.  Among other provisions requiring policy updates (like option enrollment), the bill makes procedural and substantive changes to the Nebraska Student Discipline Act.  

For KSB Policy Service Subscribers, we plan to release policy and handbooks updates in mid-May and will conduct our annual policy update webinar in early June.

KSB’s Plan for SDA Changes  

The changes to the Student Discipline Act will require handbook, policy, and form updates prior to the 2026-27 school year.  But more importantly, they’ll require you to adapt how you process individual discipline decisions.  For example, the new law sets up a modified system to get the affected student’s side of the story on the front end, and it requires additional information in your procedures and your notice letters for short- and long-term discipline and emergency exclusion.

To make sure you are prepared, KSB is hosting a Student Discipline Workshop this June designed specifically to get Nebraska administrators ready for the 2026-2027 school year.  We’ll cover the Unicameral’s changes to the Student Discipline Act in detail, with a focus on practical implementation.  We picked June because most principals are still under contract, and most boards approve handbook updates in July.  Your admin team will need some time to decide how these changes will affect your processes. 

Here are the details:

Date: June 18, 2026
Time: 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. CST
In-Person Option: KSB Offices, Lincoln, Nebraska
Virtual Option: Live Zoom broadcast (with Q&A)
On-Demand Option: Available shortly after the live training on KSB’s portal. Those who attend will continue to have access to the recorded training afterwards, as well.
Forms: All attendees (live, virtual, on-demand) will have access to continuously updated forms throughout the 2026-2027 school year.

Click here for pricing and to register.

In-person attendees will join us at the KSB offices in Lincoln. Lunch is included, followed by a casual happy hour for those who want to stay and connect with colleagues.  We will make space as needed in Lincoln, but seating will be limited. If you prefer to attend onsite, secure your seat by registering early.

Also Introducing the KSB Hearing Officer Certification (On Demand)

At the same time as the June workshop, we will release a separate, on-demand Updated Student Discipline Hearing Officer Training through the KSB portal.  The Hearing Officer Certification will be available independent of the June workshop and may be purchased separately.

This approximately two-hour session will include the full training necessary to serve as a hearing officer in Nebraska. It will include updated hearing officer forms and procedural guidance aligned with current law.

Participants who complete the program will receive official KSB certification, allowing districts to document that their hearing officers have current training and access to up-to-date materials.  We also plan to maintain a list of fully trained and certified hearing officers that we can share with clients who receive discipline hearing requests and need to act quickly to secure a hearing officer on short timelines.

If you have any questions about KSB’s plan for policy updates, SDA training, or the likely seeding for the Husker men’s basketball team come March Madness, drop us a line or give us a call.

Spring Staffing and Statutory Deadlines: What Nebraska Districts Need to Know

As spring approaches, Nebraska school districts begin planning for the upcoming school year. Every year, we get the same question: what’s the difference between a “letter of intent” and a “renewal agreement.”  Truthfully, we don’t care what you call the document.  The question is whether it is legally binding.

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-829, a district may require certificated employees to “accept employment” for next school year as early as March 15.  If they accept, it’s binding, with a caveat on resignations discussed below.  If the certificated employee fails to accept employment upon written request of the school board or the administrators, their contract can be nonrenewed or terminated (in which case the administration would need to follow all of the relevant procedures for doing so, including issuing notice no later than April 15 of the  proposed nonrenewal or termination, as the case may be).  However, no certificated employee can be required to accept employment until March 15.

Therein lies the rub.  If you intend to ask staff to formally accept employment, your document (whether an agreement or letter) should say so clearly, referencing the statute.  We strongly recommend renewal agreements to remove all doubt.

Here’s catch #1.  Let’s say you use binding renewal agreements due back to the superintendent by March 15.  However, your negotiated agreement or board policy say staff can resign as late as April 15.  At a practical level, your March 15 renewal agreement may not be binding at all as long as the employee submits a resignation by the later deadline.

Here’s catch #2.  By law, the statutory deadline to issue nonrenewal or termination notices is April 15.  However, if you give that struggling staff member a renewal agreement, it’s binding, and they sign it, you can no longer issue that notice of nonrenewal or termination.  You can’t “renew” them and then try to nonrenew or terminate them after the fact.  If you’re not sure if that employee can meet expectations, don’t issue them a renewal document.

Your homework: look at your current renewal document (whether a letter or agreement), your board policy, your handbook, and your negotiated agreement.  Every year, a handful of schools think they’re handling this correctly but end up with surprises when staff are able to resign later.  If you’ve read all this and aren’t sure what your system is or if it’s set up the right way, you should contact your school attorney.

Careful attention to these statutory timelines is essential to avoid unintended renewal issues or procedural missteps.  There’s a time to act and a time to think…and this is one of those times to think!

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

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

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

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

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

Spring Professional Development: Two Easy Options

If you’re starting to think about spring professional development and wondering how to fit one more thing into an already full calendar, we can help.  We offer two professional development options that respect teachers’ time and focus on the decisions they actually make every day.

Option 1: On-Demand Video Series

Our new on-demand series is designed for maximum flexibility and minimal disruption:

What School Attorneys Wish Teachers Knew: Legal Perspectives on Everyday School Decisions

• 10 short videos

• Each video runs 10–12 minutes

• Includes discussion questions if you want teachers to debrief with others

Option 2: In-Person Staff Inservice

For schools that prefer live professional learning, we offer in-person staff inservice sessions tailored to your needs.  These sessions focus on real scenarios educators face, provide clear guidance, and leave room for questions that usually start with, “What if…”

If you’re planning spring PD, we’re happy to talk through what would work best for your staff.  Shoot us an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com to discuss options and cost.

New 1099 Thresholds: What to Know Now

Is that the chill of a winter storm we feel coming? Or is it just the frigid heart of tax season bearing down on us all? 

One quick update to keep on your radar: 1099 reporting thresholds.

Beginning with payments made after December 31, 2025, the IRS has increased the reporting threshold for Form 1099-MISC and Form 1099-NEC:

• Old threshold: $600

• New threshold: $2,000

This change will be indexed for inflation after 2026, meaning the threshold will almost certainly continue to adjust in future years.

What does this mean for schools? While this won’t impact reporting for the 2025 tax year, it’s a great time to start planning ahead—especially if your school regularly works with independent contractors, consultants, or other non-employees.  As a reminder, we recommend routinely seeking updated W-9s from those individuals.  Lastly, the IRS published instructions regarding these form updates on December 23, 2025.  They are available here. 

If you run into any questions this tax season, our email is ready at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com 

Cold Weather, Hot FMLA Questions

January brings snow days, icy sidewalks, and that perennial winter question: Does this count as FMLA? Yes, it’s mostly lawyers who lose sleep over it. The good news: the Department of Labor has finally cleared the fog—so, for once, attorneys can rest easy, and you can too, just in time for the next weather closure. (P.S. If you need a quick refresher on FMLA leave, before diving into this blog, click here. We also have FMLA training videos available for purchase here.) 

According to the recent letter from the Department of Labor, when faced with a school closure, determining how to count FMLA depends on the type of FMLA leave the employee is using. 

Scenario 1: Employee Is Using FMLA for Less Than a Full Week

Intermittent leave is only available when medically necessary or if agreed to by the employer.  If an employee is approved for intermittent or reduced-schedule FMLA leave, and the school closes for one or more days during that week, and the employee is no longer expected to report to work during the closure, that time does not count against the employee’s leave entitlement. 

• Example: A teacher takes FMLA leave every Friday to care for a parent who has a serious health condition. If the school is closed on Friday due to icy conditions, the day does not count against the employee’s FMLA entitlement because the employee was not required to report to work.

Scenario 2: Employee Is Using FMLA for a Full Workweek

If an employee is on continuous FMLA leave for the entire workweek (which is the default approach), and the school closes for less than a week, then the entire week still counts as one full week of FMLA leave. This means the closure does not reduce the amount of FMLA leave used.  It’s still 1/12 available FMLA leave weeks.

• Example: A teacher is taking bonding time leave after the birth of a child for the next 12 weeks, and the school is closed on Wednesday that week due to snow. Even though the employee is not required to report to work, the employee still uses a full week of FMLA leave. 

The letter clarifies the following do not impact how FMLA leave is counted: 

• Whether the closure was planned or unplanned.

• The reason for the closure (weather, utilities, emergencies, etc.).

• Whether the school later schedules a “make-up” day (an employee’s need for FMLA leave on a make-up day is evaluated independently).

Here’s to clear skies, calm forecasts, and fewer leave questions ahead. But as always, if those questions arise, drop us a message at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.