3/15/05 -- The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could have far-reaching implications on the legal responsibilities of school districts in special education lawsuits.
The case (Weast v. Schaffer) involves a dispute over whether the burden of proof rests with the school district or the parents of a disabled child when parents contest their child’s individualized education plan (IEP) in a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The case was filed seven years ago after Jocelyn and Martin Schaffer challenged the IEP developed by Herbert Hoover Middle School in Montgomery County, Md., for their son Brian, a seventh grader with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The Schaffers rejected the school’s IEP and a similar proposal to transfer their son to another public middle school with smaller classes. Instead, they enrolled Brian in the McLean School of Maryland, a private school where the annual tuition is currently more than $20,000 a year.
The Schaffers requested a due process hearing and asked the Montgomery County school district to reimburse them for the tuition. An administrative law judge ruled the Schaffers had to prove that the school district’s IEP was inadequate.
The parents then filed suit in federal court, which ruled the burden of proof rested with the school system. The case was sent back to the administrative law judge, who ruled the district had to reimburse the parents for part of the private school tuition.
Montgomery County Public Schools appealed the case to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in July in favor of the school district. The Schaffers then appealed to the Supreme Court.
NSBA had filed a brief before the 4th Circuit in support of the school district. NSBA believes the burden of proof should not rest with school systems if parents challenge an IEP. The school boards associations of Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia joined NSBA’s brief.
The appeals court rejected the parents’ argument that IDEA, because it requires a school district to provide a disabled student with a free appropriate public education, imposes on the district the burden of proving that an IEP meets this obligation. The court also rejected the parents’ contention that the district should bear the burden of proof because of its advantages in expertise and resources.
“The bottom line is that there are plenty of protections in the law, and you should follow the general rule that the challenging party has the burden of proof,” says NSBA staff attorney Naomi Gittins. “That’s the normal way court and administrative proceedings work.”
A Supreme Court ruling on this issue is important because school districts across the nation deal with thousands of similar situations, and districts often settle to avoid litigation.
Case law has been inconsistent. While the 4th Circuit placed the burden on parents, other federal courts have placed the burden on school districts. And IDEA doesn’t address burden of proof.
The newly reauthorized IDEA, however, does provide some help to school districts, Gittins says. It requires parents to disclose the issues they are concerned about before they request a due process hearing. If they don’t disclose an issue, they can’t bring it up in the hearing.