ERC Testimony in Support of LB841

This is ERC's written testimony. Oral testimony on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 was adjusted for time and included discussion. The official transcript of the Education Committee hearing will be available at NebraskaLegislature.gov when transcription is complete. Or you can visit the Nebraska Legislature Video Library and watch the hearing. ERC's testimony begins at 1:12.

Chairman Murman and Members of the Education Committee, my name is Elizabeth Eynon-Kokrda and I am General Counsel for Education Rights Counsel.

Education Rights Counsel is in favor of LB 841. One of our primary programs includes limited direct representation of families to help them obtain the services that federal and state law require.

Every child verified for special education services is entitled to receive individualized education programming (an IEP) that looks at present levels of performance, creates annual goals to help children close achievement and performance gaps, identifies the services that will be needed to meet the goals, and measures progress toward meeting the goals.

The IEP is created by a “Team” that usually includes between 6-10 school employees and the parents. It’s not a level playing field and it can be very intimidating for parents.

Usually, the school district has an IEP draft to discuss that is between 7 and 15 pages long. Parents usually do not even see it prior to the IEP meeting.

The IEP is a contract, so every word matters, and many parents struggle to understand all the things in the IEP and the connotation of words. There is jargon, like “ESY” and “BIP” and “PLAAFP.” There are boxes checked in advance. And there are words that need definition - for example, an IEP might talk about “accommodations” and “modifications.” A parent might not know that an accommodation changes how a student learns, but a modification changes what a student learns. Usually, an IEP meeting is set for one hour.

If at the end of the meeting, parents disagree on the services to be provided, but the rest of the school district employees agree, then the IEP gets “locked”, meaning it becomes final. The school begins providing services whether the parent agrees or not, and the parent’s only remedies are to (a) withdraw from ALL services, or (b) file a “Due Process” complaint, which is similar to a lawsuit.

Every school district has lawyers that handle “Due Process” complaints, while parents usually don’t know how to proceed, and can’t afford a lawyer to help them. Frankly, it is a David and Goliath scenario.

LB 841 levels the playing field. First, it gives parents a right to consent to the IEP services and only lets the district create/change services if they cannot reach the parent, or they get approval through the hearing process. Second, if parents are forced to address whether or not their child’s IEP meets legal requirements, it places the burden of proof on the school district to show that they do.

Several other states have implemented similar parent-friendly processes: for example, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, and others require parents’ consent before making a material or substantive change in the IEP. Similarly, several states place the burden of proof that the IEP meets requirements, like Florida, Nevada, Georgia, New Hampshire and others.

Courts have long recognized the fundamental rights that parents have to direct their children’s upbringing and education. This right should not be abbreviated just because the child needs special education.

Parents of children with disabilities should have the right to consent to what services will be provided to their children and school districts should have the responsibility to show that the services they offer actually provide the free appropriate public education guaranteed by state and federal law.

Education Rights Counsel thanks Senator Rountree for this thoughtful bill, and urges this Committee to move LB 841 forward for consideration by the full Legislature.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.