Special-Education Ruling Leaves Parents With Tougher Burden

Special-Education Ruling Leaves Parents With Tougher Burden

(Nov. 15, 2005) -- A Supreme Court ruling issued yesterday could make it tougher for parents of children with learning disabilities to challenge their school's education program.

The nation's highest court ruled that the "burden of persuasion" is on the party seeking to prove that a special-education plan doesn't meet a child's needs -- and that is usually the parents, not the school district. The decision could affect millions of children nationwide with learning disabilities.

The 6-2 ruling concerns programs intended to address developmental, learning and physical disabilities ranging from autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to cerebral palsy. Nearly seven million children -- about 13% of public school students -- use special-education services in public schools.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, first passed and then amended in the early 1970s, school districts are required to create "individualized education programs" for children with special needs. If parents believe their child's program doesn't fit their needs, they may request an "impartial due process hearing." But the law doesn't say which party should bear the burden of proving a program's inadequacies.

Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out that the decision doesn't necessarily place the burden entirely on the parents. School districts, she noted, could also seek such hearings -- if they want to make changes to an existing program but the parents don't want to give their consent, say, or if parents refuse to allow their child to be evaluated. She also added that the law already gives parents plenty of resources, ensuring, for example, that parents have "access to an expert who can evaluate all the materials that the school must make available."

Not insignificantly, the ruling allows for states to override the decision and place the burden of persuasion on the school district. Indeed, several states, including Minnesota, Alabama and Delaware, already have laws or regulations that do so, at least in certain circumstances.

Justice O'Connor was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer wrote dissenting opinions.

The case in question, Schaffer vs. Weast, concerned the education of Brian Schaffer, who suffers from learning disabilities and speech impairments. Brian entered Maryland's Montgomery County Public School System while in middle school, after having attended private school. His parents were dissatisfied with his new school, feeling their son needed smaller classes and more intensive services. The Schaffers finally re-enrolled their son in a private school and initiated a hearing to seek compensation for the cost of that subsequent education.

After a three-day hearing, an administrative-law judge held that the parents bore the burden of persuasion, and so ruled in favor of the school district. A federal district judge found otherwise, however, and ruled for the Schaffers, only to be reversed by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which decided the general rule that the party challenging a decision bears the burden.

The Supreme Court ruling will benefit many school districts. "There's now basically a presumption that the [special program] that the schools propose has validity and that it's up to parents to disprove that," says Beth Sigall, an Arlington, Va., lawyer who handles special-education cases exclusively.

But the ruling may put families of different means on an unequal footing, with wealthier parents who can foot lawyer bills in a better position to challenge a school district.

"A lot of parents sue and don't have a lawyer because they can't afford one. But the school district always has a lawyer, funded by parent tax dollars," says Ms. Sigall. The ruling could also discourage parents from bringing meritless cases to litigation. Litigating a due-process complaint costs schools about $8,000 to $12,000 per hearing, according to the Education Department.

"Local school boards are painfully aware that every dollar spent on adversarial meetings and litigation is a dollar diverted from instruction of other students," a group of school-board associations wrote in a brief filed in the Schaffer case.

Source: WSJ

Last updated: 11/05

Related Information

top ~ send this page to a friend ~ home

HealthyPlace.com Homepage
Chat ~ Forums ~ Communities
HealthyPlace.com Films ~ HealthyPlace.com Radio ~ News
Site Map ~ Web Tour ~ Advertise ~ Email Us
send this page to a friend

HealthyPlace.com

Information

Community & Events

Special-Education Ruling Leaves Parents With Tougher Burden