|
November 19, 2005
On Monday, November 14, 2005, the US Supreme Court handed down its
decision in Schaffer v. Weast, ruling that the burden of proof in
an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) is on the party seeking relief. The
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is a blueprint for the
services a student in special education will receive as mandated
by IDEA. Normally, developing the IEP is a collaborative process
between the student (and family or guardian) and the school
system. When the two parties cannot come to an agreement on the
appropriateness or the sufficiency of an IEP, the IDEA provides
for an "impartial due process hearing," which either party can
initiate, to challenge the IEP. The IDEA is silent as to who has
the burden of proof at these hearings.
Brian Schaffer, a student with learning disabilities and speech-
language disabilities, and his parents were the Petitioners in
this case, and Jerry Weast, superintendent of the Montgomery
County MD Public School System was the Respondent. Attorneys for
the Schaffers argued that the school system was better able to
bear the burden of persuasion regarding the student's IEP than the
student and his parents. The Respondent's argument was that
Congress intended the burden to be allocated to the party
initiating the hearing and seeking relief. Many parents of
students in special education had hoped that the Court's decision
would give them more influence in the IEP process, but school
systems were concerned that a ruling on behalf of the Schaffers
would force them to spend more money and time in court than in the
classroom. The decision in this case will have far-reaching
implications for students in special education and their families,
educational funding, taxpayers, and the IDEA program as a whole.
BACKGROUND: Brian Schaffer's parents stated that they knew early
on that Brian had learning problems. They hired a speech therapist
when he was two years old to work with him and enrolled him in a
small private school when he was old enough for kindergarten. By
seventh grade, administrators there recommended that the Schaffers
find another program for Brian, at which time they turned to the
public schools. From the beginning, the school system and the
Schaffers disagreed on Brian's diagnosis. The Schaffers' experts
diagnosed Brian with a "unique central auditory processing
deficit" and recommended placement in a self-contained, full-day
special education program. The school system's experts said Brian
had a "mild speech-language disability" and recommended a setting
where Brian and other special education students would take
regular classes, but would have an aide to help them with lessons.
In addition, Brian would get 45 minutes each week of small group
speech therapy and 45 minutes of reading and writing support every
day in a special education classroom.
After Brian's parents expressed concern that the classes at his
middle school were too large, the school system recommended a
second school not far from the family's home that had smaller
classes. The Schaffers declined that placement and instead
enrolled their son at another private school. They then filed a
complaint against the school system challenging Brian's education
plan, saying it did not meet their son's needs and seeking
reimbursement for the private school tuition. At the time of the
initial complaint, an administrative law judge said the facts were
evenly balanced but ruled for the school system because "the
parents bear the burden of persuasion." The Schaffers then
appealed to the US District Court in Maryland who sent the case
back to the administrative law judge with instructions to
reconsider the case with the burden of proof on the school system,
and then the judge reversed his ruling. The District Court
rejected an appeal by the school system which then appealed to a
three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit that ruled 2-1 in favor of
the school system. Ultimately, the final appeal was heard before
the US Supreme Court.
COURT'S RULING: This was a 6-2 decision, with Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor writing for the majority which included Justices John
Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and
Clarence Thomas. Justice O'Connor said that the burden of proof
ordinarily lies where it usually falls, on the party seeking
relief. In this case, that party was the Schaffers. Justice
O'Connor further stated that the Court saw no reason to depart
from this "default" position because the law does not support the
argument that every IEP should be assumed to be invalid until the
school district demonstrtes that it's not. "There is reason to
believe that a great deal is already spent on IDEA administration,
and Congress has repeatedly amended" the law "to reduce its
administrative and litigation-related costs," she stated. Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented saying that the majority's decision
ran contrary to the purpose of the act. Justice Steven Breyer also
filed a dissent, although he would have held that the burden of
proof issue was one of state, not federal law, and remanded for
the lower courts to determine the state law issue. Chief Justice
John Roberts, whose former law firm helped represent the
Montgomery County schools in this case, did not participate.
To view the Supreme Court decision, go to: Supreme Court decision.
|