The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to review a case that could have significant implications for the implementation of the nation’s primary special education law. The case, known as Schaffer v. Weast, examines whether parents or school districts should bear the burden of proving their case in disputes over services provided to children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The IDEA requires that parents and school officials collaborate in designing individualized education plans for children with disabilities. However, the law does not specify which party should have the burden of proof in administrative hearings when disagreements arise. Consequently, lower federal courts and state courts have had conflicting interpretations of the issue.
Last July, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled, by a 2-1 vote, that the burden of proof fell on the parents in a case involving the Schaffer family and the Montgomery County school system in Maryland. The Schaffers filed an appeal, and on February 22, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
William H. Hurd, the Schaffers’ lawyer, expressed his satisfaction with the court’s decision. He believes that the case will establish a consistent national standard on an important civil rights issue. Hurd notes that approximately 6.5 million children receive services under the IDEA, so clarity on the burden of proof is crucial when parents and school districts reach an impasse during the negotiation of a child’s educational plan.
On the other hand, Eric Brousaides, a lawyer representing the Montgomery County school district, argued that the parents challenging the individualized education plan should have the burden of proof. He stated that since the IDEA does not explicitly assign this responsibility, it is logical to follow the general rule that the party seeking relief should prove their entitlement.
The majority of the 4th Circuit panel, in their ruling, acknowledged that school districts have distinct advantages over parents in terms of resources and expertise in special education disputes. However, they asserted that the IDEA includes procedural safeguards intended to level the playing field. Furthermore, they argued that if Congress wanted to assign the burden of proof to school districts, it could have done so explicitly, but chose not to.
The dissenting judge in the 4th Circuit ruling contended that districts should be required to prove the appropriateness of the plans they advocate. The judge argued that parents lack the cumulative knowledge and experience of school district representatives who work with similarly disabled children.
Although the IDEA was reauthorized last year, the legislation did not address the issue of burden of proof in administrative hearings for individualized education plans. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Schaffer v. Weast case during their 2005-06 term, which commences in October.
Comments are closed.