Gender Identity and Sports: Some (Legal) Finality?

One of the most hot button issues in education law got a lot of clarity last week.  And in a surprise twist, this will not make extra work for your school.   On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, two cases in which transgender girls sued challenging state laws that barred them from participating on sports teams designated for female athletes.  

So, can states pass laws explicitly limiting participation in women’s sports to biological females?  

Short answer: yes, even if a student takes puberty blockers or receives hormone treatments.  States with these laws on the books (27, including NE, SD, and WY) are permitted to keep them in place.  No policy changes needed.

The Court ruled that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause requires states to make exceptions for participation of transgender student-athletes.  The rationale was fairly basic.  Title IX has always permitted sex-segregated sports, and “sex” means biological sex, because that’s what it meant in 1972 when Title IX passed.  The Equal Protection clause permits states to create sex-based classifications when they are “substantially related” to an “important” governmental objective (or in nerdy lawyer speak, “intermediate scrutiny”).  According to the Court, the WV and ID laws cleared that hurdle--as would similar laws in other states.

The Court was also clear that the ruling doesn’t impact other related questions.  It doesn’t impact rules in most states that permit biological females to participate on male teams.  States can permit transgender participation, or at least the decision doesn’t prohibit it.  The Court did not make any decision about bathrooms and locker rooms.  This isn’t the end of gender-based litigation, but it does answer one long-running question.  If you have any questions, let us know: ksb@ksbschoollaw.com

P.S. Speaking of Title IX — training season for 26-27 is here. On-demand training goes live July 15:

• New administrators (required): Training on your district's Title IX policy, covering both "skinny" and "full" versions.

• Returning administrators (recommended, not required): A quick refresher on the updated sex crimes definitions and your policy.

• All staff (required only for new staff but KSB recommended for everyone): Training on your district's policy and reporting duties, also live July 15. Failing to report Title IX-covered misconduct is one of the biggest legal exposures schools have, so we recommend this for all staff every year.

• Prefer in-person? We can run all of this at a back-to-school inservice — but dates are booking fast, so grab one now. Please email Shari (shari@ksbschoollaw.com).

For additional information and to register for training, CLICK HERE.

P.P.S. Do you know an attorney with a few years of experience who would be a great fit for KSB, even without specialized education law knowledge?  Let that person know that we’re hiring!  

ACLU Summer Records Request: A Timeless Tradition

You may have read our recent blog post about board retreats.  Several times since our founding, the ACLU of Nebraska has sent out a statewide records request right around KSB’s summer retreat.  At least we weren’t boarding a plane in 2026. 

In its latest request, the ACLU seeks copies of policies and other documents related to situations where your dress code discusses “Tribal Regalia, Natural and Protective Hairstyles, and Headdresses and Religious Attire.”  These are all terms from 79-2,159, Nebraska’s dress code law that was amended last summer.  

Let’s start by talking about timing.  

Public bodies have 4 business days to respond to a records request, excluding the day of receipt and non-business days (weekends and days where the district office is closed).  If you received the request July 1 and are closed July 3, that means responses would be due July 8 if your district offices are otherwise open. So, deep breath. Your 4th of July plans don’t have to be put on hold.

Breaking Down the Requests 

First of all, the ACLU is asking for the dress code policy your board adopted to comply with 79-2,159.  That makes sense to most of our clients.  For some districts, the only responsive document may be your policy. 

The ACLU’s second and third requests have some administrators scratching their heads.  When you cut through all the lawyerly wording in the request, the ACLU wants copies of any documentation you have related to times when you had to apply these specific provisions of your dress code policy either during school or at graduation.  Many Nebraska schools will not have any responsive documents to this request.  On the other hand, maybe you had situations where a student requested certain attire or adornments for graduation or during the school year.  In that case, you will have to look back at documentation that exists, if any.  Keep in mind FERPA and other confidentiality laws may apply, so if, for example, you sought KSB’s legal advice about a specific student situation, you should withhold that information and state the legal reasons in the response.  The ACLU appropriately recognizes this and notes that they are not seeking information about “an individual’s records or personal information.”  If your district falls into this category, it’s worth a call to your school lawyer to discuss your documentation, confidentiality obligations, and the response you will send.  If you do have documents related to a specific student’s discipline history or dress code accommodation request, be sure to reach out to your school’s attorney before responding to the ACLU.  

The ACLU’s last request seeks documentation of any training you provided to District staff about these portions of your policy.  There is no requirement in the statute that you train all staff on this policy.  However, you likely did receive some training as administrators and may have discussed the new policy requirements with staff at the beginning of last year. For example, here are slides from KSB’s presentations around the time the dress code law changed:  

NRCSA 2025

Admin Days 2025

If you attended these or any other training and have copies of those slides or materials, you should include those in the response. We know most school admins had some type of training, even if informal during policy and handbook update time. That doesn’t necessarily mean you have “records” of those. But disclose them if you do.  That could also include a simple slide you used at inservice time for your staff.

Responding to the Request

If you are a KSB Policy Service subscriber, you will at least disclose policy 5031.  For the remaining requests, that’ll vary by school depending upon if you had any circumstances arise where you applied the policy to requested items, and whether you did any training or attended any conferences or other training that discussed the changes to the dress code laws.

As always, if you have any other questions, you can reach out to any of us or to all of us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

Why Your School Board Needs a Retreat (And What to Actually Do There)

We just got back from our KSB summer retreat, and honestly? We're fired up. Every year we do this twice, once in the winter, once in the summer.  And every year it reminds us why we started this firm in the first place.

We know what you might be thinking: a whole-office retreat, twice a year? Yes. Whole office. Every single person. Not just the attorneys while the administrative staff holds down the fort back home. Everyone. Because continuous improvement isn't a department at KSB, it's baked into who we are. Law firms that leave people behind for retreats, or skip them entirely to protect billable hours, are missing the point. You can't build a great team in pieces.

Here's how ours work: the winter retreat is our end-of-year after-action report. We pull the numbers, look hard at what worked and what didn't, and set the table for the year ahead.  We plan for the fiscal year ahead. The summer retreat is our check-in — are we on track? What's changed? What do our clients need that we haven't figured out yet?  We plan for the school year ahead.  In this way, we’re a lot like boards and administrators who orient themselves in January and plan for the school year during the summer. 

And here's the thing our retreats keep reminding us: growth isn't just about adding clients. It's about going deeper, not just wider.

For us, that means constantly asking what we can do for the schools we serve — before they even know they need it. Policy services. Webinars. Superintendent and building administrator evaluations. In-person workshops.  The goal isn't to be a firm that schools call when something goes wrong (and hope it’s bad enough to make a living). It's to be a firm that helps schools build the kind of governance and policy infrastructure that keeps things from going wrong in the first place. The retreat is where we hold ourselves accountable to that vision.  Some conversations are difficult.  Some are celebrations.  They’re all necessary. 

Okay, But What About Your Board's Retreat?

All of this got us thinking about school board retreats — because the same tension exists there.

A board retreat can feel like a massive investment. You're pulling elected officials and administrators out of their regular lives, possibly paying for a facilitator. And if you're not careful, you walk out with nothing but a very long to-do list, a vague sense of optimism, and a blurry “vision” that fades by October.

So what makes a board retreat actually worth it?

The goal is a strategic plan everyone actually believes in. This sounds obvious, but it's the most common place things go sideways. A strategic plan that lives in a binder on a shelf isn't a strategic plan, it's a document. A real strategic plan is one that every board member and every administrator can speak to, in their own words, without looking it up. If you can't get there, the retreat is actually a great place to build that shared language. What are we here to do? What does success look like in three years? What would have to be true for us to get there? Those questions, asked together, are worth more than any consultant's slide deck.  They all precede the written artifact, but that is where the magic happens.

Don't let the retreat become a complaint session. Every board has things that aren't working. A retreat is a good time to name them, but only if you're also naming the path forward. Facilitated well, a retreat surfaces the right issues and builds consensus around solutions. Facilitated poorly, it's a day of venting with a nice lunch.

Build in some reflection, not just planning. What did we do well this year? Where did we fall short, and why? Boards that skip the retrospective part and go straight to goals tend to repeat the same mistakes in fancier language.

Don't Leave Without Scheduling the Board Self-Evaluation

Here's something that often gets agreed to at a retreat and then quietly slips off the calendar: the board self-evaluation.

At this point in the year, most boards are wrapping up their fiscal year and heading into a new one. The retreat is a natural moment to commit — out loud, with a date on the calendar — to evaluating how the board is functioning as a governance body. Are we staying in our lane — policy and oversight — and letting the superintendent lead? Are we unified in public even when we disagree in the boardroom? Are we making decisions based on data, or based on whoever was loudest at the last community meeting?

Board self-evaluation doesn't have to be painful. Done right, it's actually energizing — because most board members want to be effective. They just don't always have a structured way to talk about it. The retreat is the right moment to agree that you'll create that structure, pick a date in the fall, and assign someone to own it.

Whether you use a formal instrument or a facilitated conversation, the questions are the same: What are we doing well? What do we want to do better? And how will we hold ourselves accountable?

The retreat plants the flag. The self-evaluation, done a few months later, tells you whether you are on track.  It’s also a place to make sure fundamental governance responsibilities that aren’t listed on the strategic plan continue to improve or at least hold steady.  Because a well-done plan can’t include everything.  Maybe your board has always done a great job being present at school events.  Did that continue even though your primary strategic initiatives are to increase staff retention and improve student attendance?

At KSB, we'll be back in the room together in the winter to answer those same questions for ourselves. We think that's what it takes to keep getting better — and we think your board is worth the same investment. 

We can even check and see if Bobby’s mom can make it to give your team haircuts. 

*Schedule a demo of the evaluation platform at https://www.ksbschoollaw.com/evaluation-platform or email ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.*

The Feds Just Reshuffled Special Ed, Civil Rights, and FERPA Oversight: Here is What it Means for You

Your students’ special ed rights are now overseen by a health agency.  Their complaints about privacy and civil rights now go directly to the Department of Justice.  If this gives you pause, good.  It should.  On June 16 the US Department of Education signed four interagency agreements that moved OSERS to HHS and OCR plus the Student Privacy Office to DOJ.  The administration has telegraphed that this was coming since 2025, but warned and ready aren’t the same thing.  There's a lot of noise out there, so here's a clear-eyed picture of what's actually happening and what it means for your district.

The Agreements

ED signed four agreements: HHS absorbs special education and rehabilitative services (OSERS); DOJ takes on civil rights enforcement (OCR), student privacy protection (FERPA), and school desegregation advisory services.  ED retains statutory authority and final decision-making under all four.  Secretary Linda McMahon issued a letter the same day reassuring schools and families that IDEA’s education framework remains intact and “that OSERS and OCR will maintain their independent statutory functions without interruption.”  That's the promise.  Implementation is the question. 

Civil Rights Enforcement Gets Sharper, Maybe

DOJ likely brings a stronger enforcement posture than OCR's traditional complaint-resolution model, and this shift shouldn't come as a surprise.  A complaint moving through a DOJ-assisted investigation may simply feel different from one handled entirely within OCR's traditional framework.  That's not cause for alarm, but it is a reason to take incoming complaints seriously and loop in counsel early, which is a good practice regardless.  This shift didn't come without warning.  Over the past year, headlines have focused primarily on OCR's significant staff reductions, so shifting its functions to an agency with stronger enforcement muscle is a logical next step to achieve the administration's desire to shrink the Department of Education.  The administration launched a joint Title IX Special Investigations Team in 2025 combining OCR and DOJ staff to build enforcement-ready cases from day one.  DOJ recently announced investigations into dozens of districts in California, Illinois, and Michigan over curriculum content and parental opt-out rights, a sign of the enforcement posture districts should expect going forward.  Even if this move comes as no surprise, only time will tell how or whether districts feel its impact.  Traditionally, the DOJ has more muscle but fewer complaint processors.  How they staff this switch to handle thousands of potential complaints is worth monitoring.

On a practical note, if your district is currently in the middle of an OCR investigation, it will not reset.  Stay engaged, meet every deadline and make sure your documentation clearly explains your district's decisions.  If DOJ plays a more active role, the process may feel more formal and legalistic, which is all the more reason to involve your school lawyers in the process early or to get them involved now if you haven’t.

FERPA Oversight Expands

The student privacy agreement gets less press than the civil rights move, but it touches every district directly.  DOJ now reviews FERPA complaints and investigates how districts handle student records, parental access to curriculum, and survey opt-outs.  This administration has prioritized parental rights since Executive Order 14190 (January 2025), and Secretary McMahon signaled intent to clear the FERPA complaint backlog in March 2025.  Districts won't feel this shift immediately, but it does signal that diligent FERPA training and compliance remain essential.

One open question worth watching: the agreement doesn’t make entirely clear who will be responsible for sending student privacy letters going forward.  Unclear lines of authority have a way of meaning things fall through the cracks.  Student Privacy Office complaint investigations have never been speedy and it feels likely that this problem will be exacerbated, at least in the short term. 

Special Education Moves to HHS

This is the move that has generated the most concern and that concern isn’t unreasonable.  OSERS, IDEA and OCR are all pieces of the same special educational puzzle.  Splitting them across HHS and DOJ raises real questions about coordination and institutional knowledge going forward.  

Advocacy groups have raised concerns about the OSERS-to-HHS move, arguing that HHS operates through a health and medical services framework, raising real questions about whether special education oversight belongs in an agency whose default orientation is clinical rather than educational.  Secretary McMahon’s June 16 letter addressed this directly, stating that “IDEA ensures that a child’s disability isn’t viewed as a medical condition that needs to be treated.”  That’s the right legal framing, but the question is whether that holds in practice.  Under the partnership, HHS takes over day-to-day administrative functions, including grant administration, compliance monitoring, data collection, and fund drawdowns, while OSERS retains policy leadership, statutory authority, and technical assistance to states.  FY2026 grants continue through ED's G5 system; future awards will move to HHS's GrantSolutions platform.  At best, this will be a learning curve for a new system; at worst, grant management may become even more complex.  More info on an upcoming training opportunity below.

Bottom Line

Your obligations under IDEA, Section 504, Title II, Title VI, and Title IX have not changed. Students retain their rights, and federal oversight continues, just under a new organizational structure.  The questions around implementation are real and worth watching, but we’re tracking the details closely.  We’ll keep you updated as guidance develops.  Stay focused on compliance, document what you’re doing and loop in legal when you have questions arise.  As always, you can reach us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

One More Thing While We Have You

All of this federal grant reshuffling comes at a moment when grant compliance  (boring things like EDGAR, Uniform Guidance, procurement, obligation deadlines) is under more scrutiny than it's been in years.  The cost of getting it wrong has gone from "uncomfortable audit finding” to “very bad news very fast.”  We have something coming in October that’s directly relevant and we think you’ll be glad we got it on the books when we did.  More details to come soon…..  

You're Running One of the Most Important Institutions in America. Almost Nobody Knows.

Karen got a call last spring from a board member who had spent several days fielding phone calls about a special education student who had been cursing in front of his second-grade peers.  What kind of out-of-control operation are you running over there? - the outraged parents kept demanding.  “They acted like I personally decided to let this kid start swearing,” the board member told Karen.  “I’m a farmer.  I finish cattle.  I’m on the board because I care about the school my kids go to.  They just don’t understand the special ed laws you keep telling us about.”  He was not wrong on any count.

A new study from the Annenberg Institute surveyed more than 8,600 Americans about their knowledge of school boards, and it turns out this school board member’s neighbors are not alone.

Thirty-two percent of respondents couldn’t say whether their local school board members are elected or appointed.  Nearly half had no idea when their board elections are held.  The public’s best guess for voter turnout in school board races was 28 percent.  The actual number is closer to 12 percent.

Meanwhile, 95 percent of those same respondents said school safety was at least somewhat important to them.  Eighty-four percent said the same about school cafeteria food (the quality of which is, sadly, largely dictated by the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.)  School board election timing came in at 49 percent.

Your community trusts you with the thing they care about most.  They just don’t know who you are, how you got there, or when they had a chance to weigh in.

This Is Not a New Problem.  But Now There’s Data.

School boards collectively oversee nearly $1 trillion in annual spending — comparable to federal Medicare and defense spending.  Board members set attendance zones, negotiate union contracts, approve curriculum, manage multi-million dollar budgets, and make real-time calls about student safety.  They do most of it in near-total obscurity, in communities where local media coverage is thin and voter turnout is thinner.

Here is what board members and superintendents already know and rarely get credit for: the decisions that generate the most public heat are frequently not your decisions at all.  Transgender student policies.  Special education placement requirements.  Teacher tenure protections.  Curriculum mandates.  The federal government writes the rule, or the state passes the law, and your board implements it.  Then you field the calls, the emails, and the two-hour public comment period from a community that has no idea the choice was never yours to make.  (See: our farmer friend above.)

The study’s authors note that public awareness of school board governance is especially low in communities without robust local media — which describes most of Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming precisely. The accountability mechanisms that are supposed to connect boards to their communities are running at a fraction of capacity.  That is not a failure of your board.  It’s a structural reality of governing in rural America.

What the Study Gets Right About Teachers, Too

Here’s a finding that runs against the conventional wisdom: teachers support moving school board elections to the same day as national elections at a rate of 72 percent.  That is higher than the general public’s 55 percent.  The assumption has always been that teachers and their unions benefit from low-turnout off-cycle elections.  Turns out teachers, like most people, just want a more representative process.  This is worth knowing the next time someone tells you your staff is working against the community.

In fact, you should consider sharing the study's findings with your entire board at your next meeting.  The data provides a useful point for a conversation about governance and public accountability.

A Quick Aside

We’ve built a board self-evaluation platform designed for exactly the environment this study describes — one where external accountability is unreliable and boards need a structured internal process to hold themselves to a standard.  If your board is planning a summer retreat or looking for ways to grow as a board, it’s worth a look. Details at ksbschoollaw.com/evaluation-platform or email ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

Before You Go: Its Policy Season!

Speaking of things the government requires that the public will eventually blame you for — our annual policy webinar walks you through every state and federal update your board policies need to reflect before next school year.  Nebraska subscribers, that’s tomorrow (Tuesday, June 2).  South Dakota subscribers, yours is June 16.  If you’re not subscribed to our policy service, you can find more detail about the service at www.ksbschoollaw.com/policy-service-.

The Clock Was Ticking…Now It’s Snoozing: DOJ Accessibility Rule Delay

Just last week we updated you on the status of the Title II Web Accessibility Standards.  In a rare twist for anything involving lawyers, things have moved quickly.

On Friday, April 17, 2026, the Department of Justice issued an Interim Final Rule delaying the compliance deadline for the new web accessibility standards (we wrote about this just last week for a refresher).  Basically, the DOJ pushed all compliance deadlines back by one year.  Meaning independent school districts with a population of 50,000 or more must comply with the new standards by April 26, 2027.  For districts under that threshold, compliance is now required by April 26, 2028. 

Before you mark your calendars, the DOJ also signaled that it might scrap this rule altogether.  DOJ stated that it intends to pursue future rulemaking on the substance of the 2024 final rule and may issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to gather public comment on potential changes.  In other words, the DOJ may revise the rule further, but it has not yet proposed specific changes.

We will keep you updated here on the blog.  For now, the new compliance deadlines have been extended significantly.  If you have any questions, send us a message at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

The Clock Is Ticking…Maybe? DOJ Web Accessibility Rule Update

Way back in 2024, we talked about a new rule from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding web accessibility requirements.  This rule applies to state and local government entities—including public K–12 school systems.  The goal is to ensure that individuals with vision, hearing, cognitive, motor and other impairments can access the information and services public entities make available online.

When do you have to comply?  The law ties compliance deadlines to the size of the entity.  Remember, this rule applies to most public entities, not just schools.  For a city or a county with its own census population, it’s simpler.  For entities run by larger local governments, they use the larger entity’s population.  For example, if a library is run by a city, it uses the city’s population.  

For schools, the rules get a bit funky.  The size of the school depends on if it is an “instrumentality” of a city or county, or if it is “independent” with its own boundaries and governance structure.  For “independent” school districts, for compliance purposes, the size of the district is measured by the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE).  The DOJ website guides independent school districts to look at the 2022 SAIPE, linked here for Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming.  Other DOJ guidance says to use the “most recent” SAIPE, so if your school is near the 50,000 cutoff line, here’s a link to the 2024 numbers, published by the Census Bureau recently.

For independent school districts with a population of 50,000 or more, compliance with the new standards is expected by April 24, 2026.  For districts under that threshold, compliance is required by April 26, 2027. 

What, exactly, is the accessibility standard?  The rule requires websites and digital content to meet a standard called WCAG 2.1, Level AA standards (2018 version).  If you don’t know exactly what that means, join the club!  It is an international web accessibility standard that the feds adopted wholesale as “the law.”   Its scope is broad and includes:

• Mobile applications

• Social media content

• Digital learning platforms and textbooks

• Online forms, documents, and communications

• In some cases, third-party sites that you link to

Are these rules changing again!?  On February 13, 2026, the DOJ sent a revised version of the Title II web accessibility rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review as an Interim Final Rule (“IFR”).  This matters because:

• An IFR allows DOJ to revise the rule without going through a full public comment process first

• The contents of the revised rule are not yet public

• The rule is actively under federal review, and stakeholder meetings are taking place during this review process

In short, we know the DOJ is considering changes, but we do not know what those changes ultimately will be.  The first deadline—April 24, 2026 for entities of 50,000 or more—remains in effect. While it is possible that the DOJ could modify the rule, there has been no official action to delay or revise the requirements.  If changes are announced, we will provide updates, but for now, districts should plan to comply on schedule.  

Most schools that have contacted us about these rules are already working with their technology staff and web/app providers.  Just as one example, many schools run their websites through Apptegy.  Companies like it promise compliant formats for web content, but schools also need to be familiar with the accessibility rules for things they include in their websites and apps.  If you have any questions, reach out to your school district’s attorney or contact us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com. 

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. 

Before Hotmail Was Hot: FERPA’s Pre-Email Predicament

FERPA debuted in the ’70s—an age of rotary phones, typewriters, manila folders—not exactly the dawn of digital communication. Because of that, FERPA’s original framework didn’t contemplate the advent and rise of Hotmail in 1996 (side note: if you still have your Hotmail account, impressive). Since that time, schools and courts have had to figure out how email communication (and DMs on Facebook) intersects with FERPA obligations. 

Under FERPA, an education record is any record that (1) directly relates to a student, and (2) is maintained by the school district. 34 C.F.R. § 99.3. Back in the day, the concept of an education record was simple; it was the hard copies of information that the school locked away in a student’s file in its filing cabinet. 

Questions in 2025 are different.  With email, when does an email that includes a student’s name or school email address begin to relate to that student directly? At what point does a district “maintain” that record? As recently as April 2025, the Student Privacy Policy Office, the federal office tasked with FERPA compliance, recognized that the Department has not “issued any subsequent formal guidance or regulations that specifically addresses the applicability of FERPA to emails.” Letter to Monogue. However, a recent case out of Nevada sheds some helpful light on this very issue.

In the case Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, No. 89127, 2025 Nev. LEXIS 66 (Nov. 26, 2025), the court looked at whether emails that are broadly stored in a district’s Google Workspace are education records. Even assuming an email “relates” to a student, the court reasoned that emails may constitute education records, but to be an education record, “the email relating to the student must be deliberately stored by the records custodian as part of that student's records.” 

The word “deliberate” aligns with the historic understanding of what it means to “maintain” a record.  It means that there is an intentional choice to “maintain” the email, as defined by policy.  Emails that exist within the school’s email system lack that intentionality and, according to the court, were not “maintained”. The court further emphasized that just because an email mentions a student, that does not necessarily mean the email “directly relate[s] to and bear a close connection to the student.”

Now, even though this opinion is out of Nevada, districts in other states can walk away with a few important lessons from it.

1. Review your district’s policy. The court, in part of its reasoning, looked to the district’s definition of education record to support its finding that emails sent in the ordinary course of business were not automatically education records.  Nowadays, there are all kinds of records (i.e., attendance and discipline file, grade books, student support services folder, etc.). Your policy should focus on what it means to “maintain” a record, rather than focusing on the type of record. 

2. Routine storage in email servers/databases is not the same as intentional maintenance, assuming your policy defines maintain appropriately. It may be helpful to chat with your tech person to understand better the life of an email in your district’s digital domain.  Clarify with staff what it means to “maintain” records based on your policy. 

3. Emails CAN be education records, even if not specifically identified in your district’s policy. Whether an email is an education record comes down to that fundamental definition: it must (1) directly relate to the student and (2) be maintained. There may be instances where an email (for example, an email sent by an administrator documenting a disciplinary incident and saved in a student’s disciplinary file) is an education record. 

As always, if you have questions, email us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com, and we may or may not promise that your email will become part of your KSB education record. 

PPACA Reporting 2025: The “Most Wonderful Time of the Year” for… Paperwork?

Just as the holiday season brings its annual flurry of festivities, so too does the other seasonal tradition you know well: PPACA reporting.  Administrators--if your business officials have attended the PPACA reporting workshop before, they also received an email from Shari, but you should forward this on to them just in case.  If you have a new business official, share this like it’s hot.

While the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) reporting obligations are more than a decade old, they continue to be a source of confusion, especially for those who only dust off the requirements once a year.  Luckily, the 2025 reporting year brings only modest changes, but still enough updates and reminders to justify a fresh review of your processes before you’re buried under a blizzard of 1095-Cs.

Below is a summary of what school districts need to know as we head into 2025 and an invitation to join us for our annual PPACA webinar, where we’ll walk through everything in detail.

What’s New (or Newly Important) for 2025?

1. Electronic Filing Threshold Remains Low

As of last year, the IRS permanently lowered the electronic filing threshold to 10 forms total across all information returns combined.  That means nearly every school district will be required to file 1094-C/1095-C forms electronically.  Now is the time to double-check with your accounting software provider regarding end of the year trainings and verify that your login information works for the IRS AIR system.  

2. Continued Enforcement of Good-Faith Relief Expiration

The IRS has not reinstated good-faith penalty relief.  This means errors in coding or late submissions can result in significant penalties.  Because the IRS is increasingly using automated matching systems to identify discrepancies, accuracy matters more than ever.

3. Affordability Percentage

In 2025, the PPACA affordability threshold is 9.02% of household income.  The IRS recently released the 2026 threshold which is 9.96%.  School districts should review employee premium contributions to confirm compliance.  In the webinar, we’ll explain how these thresholds apply to plans like schools and ESUs have in place, where the insurance year changes over in the middle of the calendar year.

Join Us: Annual PPACA Update & Reporting Webinar

Just as holiday decorations reappear each year, so does PPACA reporting season.  To help ease the process, Bobby and Sara will once again host the Annual PPACA Webinar. We will cover annual reporting requirements, common mistakes we see our clients make annually, a legal update for 2025, and what to look for in 2026.

Date and Time: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 from 9:00-12:00

Where: The webinar will be conducted via Zoom, and all participants will be able to ask questions during and after the presentation.  All registrants will receive a copy of the slides, materials used in the webinar, and this year’s version of the instructions and forms, plus IRS documents establishing affordability, reporting deadlines, etc.

Cost: The cost will be $350 per school.

Register here. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or 402-804-8000.

What South Dakota Schools Need to Know About the 2026 Election Changes

Beginning January 1, 2026, school district elections in South Dakota will operate under updated laws as a result of the 2025 legislative session and HB 1130.  Under SDCL § 13‑7‑10, districts must hold their annual election the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June or the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  In 2026, these dates are June 2, 2026 or November 3, 2026.  This means if you were a district that held annual elections in April you must change your date starting in 2026.  Any district selecting a June election should calendar notice deadlines for publication as they are fast approaching in December.  The Secretary of State recently released the school election calendar timeline here. 

For a June 2026 election, the vacancy‐notice period requires publication of vacancies no later than December 15–30, 2025 (six months before).  Additionally, the January board meeting is the deadline for districts to establish an election date.  Beyond scheduling and notices, districts must also ensure proper training and oversight of the election process for each election.  Under § 12‑15‑7 (which applies to schools because of § 12-1-1) the school business manager is required to convene the precinct superintendents at a convenient time and place prior to each election to instruct them on election laws and duties.  The training materials from the Office of the Secretary of State reinforce that the person in charge of the election should conduct training with assistance of the school’s legal counsel.  As you prepare to enter election season, coordinate with your school attorney what that election training may look like - either in person or via Zoom.  (We are also considering an on demand option so please reach out if there is interest in such a training.)

If you have any questions as you review the new laws regarding elections or need a school board resolution to set your election date, please do not hesitate to contact us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.