Education Law Publications
The firm publishes a monthly "Issue of the Month" on current issues or matters of interest in the education law area. If you want more information about our education law practice or a copy of any of our articles, contact David Duff at dduff@ddtwb.com SCHOOL LAW
"ISSUE OF THE MONTH"
December 2005 SUPREME COURT DECIDES SPECIAL EDUCATION BURDEN-OF-PROOF CASE On November 14, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) that has significant implications for school districts throughout the country. In Schaffer v. Weast , the Court ruled that, in an administrative due process hearing challenging an individualized education program (“IEP”) under the IDEA, the burden of proof is on the party challenging the IEP. The case involved Brian Schaffer, who was a seventh-grader at a private school in 1998 when officials of the school informed Brian’s parents that the private school could no longer appropriately serve Brian. The parents contacted their local public school district, the Montgomery County, Maryland, Public Schools, to consider enrolling Brian in the District to receive services. The District evaluated Brian and determined that he had learning disabilities and speech-language impairments. The District subsequently developed an IEP for Brian and proposed that he attend the middle school in his attendance area, with assistance from a resource teacher for several classes and weekly speech therapy. When Brian’s parents expressed concern about the class sizes of the middle school in his attendance area, the District proposed that Brian attend a second nearby middle school that had smaller class sizes. The IEP would have provided more than 15 hours a week of special education services, nearly half of Brian’s time in school. The parents remained dissatisfied with the IEP and enrolled Brian in a different private school. The parents then requested a due process hearing, challenging the District’s IEP and seeking reimbursement for the tuition cost of the private school. At the hearing, the hearing officer found that, due to the divergent expert testimony presented by the parties, the issue of which party bore the burden of proof was “critical” to a determination of the case. Concluding that the parents had the burden of proving their claims, and that they had failed to do so, the hearing officer ruled in favor of the District. After the federal trial court ruled that the burden of proof should have been on the District, the hearing officer reconsidered his decision and ruled in favor of the parents. In so ruling, the hearing officer concluded that placement of the burden of proof was determinative of the outcome. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed, holding that the burden of proof should have been on the parents. The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s decision. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the party challenging the IEP -- in Schaffer , the parents -- bears the burden of persuading the hearing officer that the IEP is inadequate. The Court, in an opinion by Justice O’Connor, explained that, ordinarily, plaintiffs are responsible for proving their claims. Because the IDEA is silent on the issue of burden of proof, the Court concluded that the burden must lie “where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.” Although acknowledging that school districts have a “natural advantage” in acquiring relevant information and expertise, the Court explained that Congress addressed this advantage in the IDEA by providing procedural safeguards and requiring school districts to share information with parents. Further, the Court majority was unwilling to assume that every IEP is invalid until the school district proves it to be valid, which is what the Schaffers’ position would have required. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer dissented, for different reasons, from the majority opinion. Justice Ginsburg reasoned that, although the burden of proof ordinarily falls on the plaintiff, the burden of proof under the IDEA should be placed on the school district because it has an affirmative obligation to provide an appropriate IEP and is in the better position to defend its program. Justice Breyer, on the other hand, would leave the decision as to burden of proof to the states, reasoning that the IDEA’s silence on the issue of burden of proof meant that Congress did not intend to establish a uniform federal standard. Given the ruling in Schaffer , the party challenging an IEP bears the burden of proof, unless the particular state has adopted a different standard. Since parents initiate most due process cases, which in some way challenge or attack the IEP for failing to provide “free appropriate public education” to their children, in most cases, parents will have the burden of proof. In a smaller percentage of cases, school districts request due process, such as situations where the district wishes to make a placement change because of lack of adequate educational progress or behavioral issues. In hearings requested by districts, under the Schaffer ruling, the district will have the proof burden. Although burden of proof is dispositive only in a small percentage of cases where the evidence is essentially equal on both sizes, the Court’s ruling will affect school districts by increasing the likelihood that districts will prevail in close cases and by discouraging some parents from filing questionable due process claims. Because South Carolina does not have a state law requiring school districts to bear the burden of proof, the Schaffer decision will be helpful to all districts in this State in, perhaps, reducing the number of due process cases and in making it more likely that districts will prevail, since most due process hearings are requested by parents. If you have questions concerning the implications of the Schaffer decision for your school district, or in a particular case, please contact Dave Duff, Andrea White, or Suzanne Hawkins. Past Issues of the Month may be accessed at www.ddtwb.com. |
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Copyright © 2008 by Duff, White & Turner, LLC. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.
| 
