School district wins in special education case
11/22/05 -- In a decision that will have broad implications for school districts nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Nov. 14 that parents who demand better special education programs have the burden of proof when they challenge a school’s plan for their child.
Writing the majority opinion in Schaffer v. Weast, retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concluded, “Absent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise . . . we will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.”
The 6-2 ruling concurs with an amicus brief NSBA submitted to the Supreme Court. “The Court’s decision is consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act’s [IDEA] emphasis on a collaborative process between parents and schools who are equal partners in developing IEPs [individualized education programs] for children with disabilities,” says NSBA General Counsel Francisco Negron.
O’Connor recognized that “IDEA has provided parents with plenty of access to educational information about their children so that the school district really has no unfair advantage,” Negron says.
The case was filed by Jocelyn and Martin Schaffer, whose son, Brian, was a seventh grader at a Montgomery County, Md., public school. The Schaffers objected to the IEP that school officials were preparing for the boy, who had learning disabilities. They transferred him to a private school, requested a due process hearing, and asked the school district to reimburse them for the private school tuition, which is more than $20,000 a year.
At the hearing, an administrative law judge ruled that the Schaffers had to prove that the school district’s IEP was inadequate. The parents then filed suit in federal court, which ruled that the burden of proof rested with the school system. The district appealed, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court ruled in favor of the district.
Montgomery County Superintendent Jerry Weast called the Supreme Court decision “a victory for special education teachers.”
“We asked the court to reject the assumption that a child’s educational program is automatically invalid until proven otherwise and to simply affirm the basic legal principle that if you bring a case, then you should prove the merits of the case,” Weast says.
The Supreme Court reinforced IDEA’s reliance on the expertise of school personnel to develop appropriate educational programs for children with disabilities and refused to accept the parents’ position, which would make IEPs presumptively invalid, Negron says.
He also praised a concurring opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens stating that public school officials should be presumed to be properly carrying out their difficult responsibilities under IDEA.
The Schaffer ruling is important because “school districts across the nation deal with thousands of similar situations,” says NSBA Executive Director Anne L. Bryant. “This decision will help limit the cost of special education hearings, allowing schools to spend the money and resources on educating children, not legal proceedings.”
| Reproduced with permission from School Board News. Copyright © 2005, National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect positions of NSBA. This article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise transmitted or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6789. |