Special Education

Supreme Court Rules for School District in IDEA Case

By Andrew Trotter — November 14, 2005 4 min read

Parents who challenge their children’s education plans under the federal special education law have the burden of proof in due-process hearings, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The court, in a 6-2 decision on Nov. 14, held that whichever party brings such a challenge to an individualized education program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is the one that must prove its case. So school districts would bear the burden in cases in which they challenge an IEP.

But even Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the majority opinion, acknowledged that “as a practical matter, it appears that most hearing requests come from parents rather than schools.”

“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,” Justice O’Connor said.

Jerry D. Weast, the superintendent of the Montgomery County, Md., school district, which the parents of a special education student had sued in the case, said the ruling in Schaffer v. Weast (Case No. 04-698) was “a victory for special education teachers; they’re the ones who are better off by this decision.”

The ruling means that teachers will ultimately not have to spend as much time on IDEA proceedings as they do now, he said.

The parents at the center of the case, Jocelyn and Martin Schaffer, had sought to enroll their son Brian in the 139,000-student Montgomery County district. But they disagreed with the district’s plan to place their son, who had learning disabilities and speech-language impairments, in a middle school setting with classrooms that were larger and with less access to intensive services that they believed Brian needed.

The parents instead placed Brian in a private school and sued the district. Though they later accepted a placement in a district-run high school with a special learning center, they sought compensation for the private school tuition and related expenses.

An administrative judge ruled that the evidence in the case favored both sides equally, so the case hinged on the question of which party had the burden of proof under the IDEA.

A U.S. District Court judge ruled that the school district bore the burden of proof. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled that the burden should fall on the party bringing the complaint.

Court Divided

Lawyers for the Schaffers contended that a family is in a weak position to challenge a school district’s stance on a child’s placement in special education, because of the district’s greater access to expertise and legal services.

But Justice O’Connor described the many procedural safeguards established for parents by the IDEA. She observed that the core of the statute is the cooperative process that it established between parents and schools.

The Schaffers “in effect ask this court to assume that every IEP is invalid until the school district demonstrates that it is not,” Justice O’Connor said. “The [IDEA] does not support this conclusion.”

She noted that Congress clarified in its 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA that school districts may be the ones seeking a due-process hearing over a student’s IEP, such as when they wish to change an existing plan but the parents do not consent, or if parents refuse to allow their child to be evaluated for special education.

Justice O’Connor’s opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent arguing that school districts generally have the “bigger guns” in such disputes, in the form of resources and information.

“It bears emphasis that the vast majority of parents whose children require the benefits and protections provided under the IDEA lack knowledge about the education resources available to their child and the sophistication to mount an effective case against a district-proposed IEP,” she said.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued his own dissent that said that because the federal special education law was silent on the burden of proof, the issue should be left for each state to decide based on its own laws or rules for due-process hearings.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not participate in the case. His former law firm, Hogan & Hartson in Washington, represented the school district.

Speedy Resolution

Michael J. Eig, one of the lawyers representing the Schaffer family, expressed disappointment with the ruling.

“This is going to make it a bit more difficult for parents of disabled kids to make a case on behalf of their child,” he said. “As great and significant a Justice as O’Connor is and has been, I think she unfortunately didn’t appreciate that the protections she talks about are largely protections that exist before the due-process hearing.”

He said that parents often accept individualized educational programs for their children with disabilities but then change their minds after observing that those plans are not working in the classroom. Under the decision, parents now have an uphill battle to change such plans if districts don’t agree, he suggested.

But Naomi Gittens, a lawyer with the Alexandria, Va.-based National School Board Association, which filed a brief supporting the Montgomery County district, said, “We’re pretty pleased with how the case came out.”

Ms. Gittens praised Justice O’Connor’s decision for supporting the collaborative nature of the task of developing a plan to educate a child with disabilities and for recognizing that Congress “took very careful measures to even out the field” for both parents and school districts.

The speed of the decision, issued less than six weeks after the case was argued before the court on Oct . 5, surprised legal observers. Some attributed that dispatch to Justice O’Connor, who is known for her speedy turnaround on opinions that she writes. Justice O’Connor has announced her retirement and plans to leave the court as soon as her successor has been confirmed.

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
A Safe Return to Schools is Possible with Testing
We are edging closer to a nationwide return to in-person learning in the fall. However, vaccinations alone will not get us through this. Young children not being able to vaccinate, the spread of new and
Content provided by BD
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Teaching Webinar
Meeting the Moment: Accelerating Equitable Recovery and Transformative Change
Educators are deciding how best to re-establish routines such as everyday attendance, rebuild the relationships for resilient school communities, and center teaching and learning to consciously prioritize protecting the health and overall well-being of students
Content provided by Campaign for Grade-Level Reading
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Reading & Literacy Webinar
Addressing Learning Loss: What Schools Need to Accelerate Reading Instruction in K-3
When K-3 students return to classrooms this fall, there will be huge gaps in foundational reading skills. Does your school or district need a plan to address learning loss and accelerate student growth? In this
Content provided by PDX Reading

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Special Education Opinion Five Teacher-Recommended Strategies to Support Students With Learning Differences
Four educators share strategies for supporting students with learning differences, including utilizing "wait time" and relationship building.
11 min read
Images shows colorful speech bubbles that say "Q," "&," and "A."
iStock/Getty
Special Education The Pandemic Made It Harder to Spot Students With Disabilities. Now Schools Must Catch Up
After more than a year of disruption for all students, the pressure's on to find those in need of special education and provide services.
13 min read
Aikin listens to her eight-year-old son, Carter, as he reads in the family’s home in Katy, TX, on Thursday, July 8, 2021. Carter has dyslexia and Aikin could not help but smile at the improvement in his fluency as he read out loud.
Kanisha Aikin listens to her 8-year-old son, Carter, who has dyslexia, as he reads aloud in the family’s home in Katy, Texas.
Annie Mulligan for Education Week
Special Education What Employers Can Teach Schools About Neurodiversity
The benefits of neurodiversity have gained traction in business, but college and career support for students with disabilities falls short.
8 min read
Special Education The Challenge of Teaching Students With Visual Disabilities From Afar
Teachers of students with visual disabilities struggle to provide 3-D instruction in a two-dimensional remote learning environment.
Katie Livingstone
5 min read
Neal McKenzie
Neal McKenzie, an assistive technology specialist, works with a student who has a visual impairment in Sonoma County, Calif.<br/>
Courtesy Photo