Court Rules Against Special Ed. Parents

High Court Rules That the Burden of Proof in Cases Challenge Special Education Programs Falls to Parents

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Nov 14, 2005 — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that parents who demand better special education programs for their children have the burden of proof in the challenges.
The 6-2 decision, written by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said that if parents challenge a program, they have the burden in an administrative hearing of showing that the program is insufficient. If schools bring a complaint, the burden rests with them, O'Connor wrote.
The ruling is a loss for a Maryland family that contested the special education program designed for their son with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The case required the court to interpret the Individuals With Disabilities Act, which does not specifically say whether parents or schools have the burden of proof in disputes.
The family's attorney, William Hurd, unsuccessfully argued that when there are disagreements between schools and parents, education officials have better access to relevant facts and witnesses.

Chief Justice John Roberts had recused himself from the case, because attorneys from his old law firm represented the school district.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer wrote separate dissents.
_________________________________________________________

Here's the Supreme Court opinion.

(FYI- I'm not citing to the case- if you want to read where I got the quote or info just click on the link above!)

Basically, Justice O'Connor said that since the IDEA is silent as to which party bears the burden of proof, the default (party seeking relief) should bear it absent circumstances that did not exist here.

Justice O'Connor said that the Petitioners are basically asking the Court to assume that every IEP is invalid until the school district demonstrates that it is not, and that the IDEA does not support such a contention. She cited the "stay-put" provision as evidence of that, since it requires a child to stay in his or her current educational placement for the pendency of the IDEA hearing, and said that "Congress could have required that a child be given the educational placement that a parent required during such a dispute, but it did no such thing."

Justice O'Connor rejected each of Petitioners' arguments, but stated that their most plausible argument was that the ordinary rule that places the burden on the party seeking relief, in the interest of fairness, doesn't place the "burden upon a litigant of establishing facts peculiarly within the knowledge of his adversary." Here the school district has a natural advantage in information and expertise. The Court, however, ultimately rejected this argument as well because the parents have a right to review all of the child's records, to an independent education evaluation, and to several new rights Congress implemented in 2004.

The Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, making the parents bear the burden of persuasion if they challenge an IEP.

Justice Ginsburg Dissented. I think the most persuasive thing Justice Ginsburg said was this: "Under typical civil rights and social welfare legislation, the complaining party must allege and prove discrimination or qualification for statutory benefits." (citations omitted) "The IDEA is atypical in this respect: It casts an affirmative, beneficiary-specific obligation on providers of public education. School districts are charged with responsibility to offer each disabled child an individualized education program (IEP) suitable to the child's special needs. (citations omitted) The proponent of the IEP, it seems to me, is properly called upon to demonstrate its adequacy."

Justice Breyer Dissented. Justice Breyer's view is that since Congress did not address the issue of the burden of persuasion, it should be left to the States to decide. He believes that this would be consistent with the Act's intent of "cooperative federalism". He would remand the case.

In California the burden is on the party bringing the action, almost always the parent. I wasn't even aware that it is different in some districts. I never even considered it an issue until I read Justice Ginsburg's dissent, and it really made sense to me and made me think. Likewise, Justice Breyer had an excellent point and an interesting perspective. I was truly left without a strong opinion here, although I think as I become more involved in Special Education I'll probably grow to form one because I'll see the system at work more.

Does anyone else have any feedback or opinions on this?