Monday, November 14, 2005

Court Rules Against Special Ed. Parents

Nov 14, 3:55 PM (ET)

By GINA HOLLAND

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that parents who demand better special education programs for their children have the burden of proof in the challenges.

Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the 6-2 court, said that when 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 Education Act, which does not specifically say whether parents or schools have the burden of proof in disputes. The law covers more than 6 million students.


The Maryland family in the Supreme Court case had argued that when there are disagreements between schools and parents, education officials have better access to relevant facts and witnesses.

The Bush administration backed the Montgomery County, Md., school district which maintained that the extra requirement would be expensive for local schools.

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

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer wrote separate dissents.

"School districts are charged with responsibility to offer to each disabled child an individualized education program (IEP) suitable to the child's special needs. The proponent of the IEP, it seems to me, is properly called upon to demonstrate its adequacy," Ginsburg wrote.

O'Connor said the court was not ruling on a separate issue, whether states could set their own policies and put the burden on the school officials.

The case is Schaffer v. Weast, 04-698.


Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the decision and was joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas. Justices Ginsberg and Breyer filed dissenting opinions. For a transcript of the complete decision, click here.

2 comments:

Crazy Politico said...

That's a tough case. I've been on both ends of the IEP game, and it was a pain to get one school district to issue one (or even test for the necessity). The next district went totally out of their way to help my son.

In the case of that law, it was poorly written, and has been a problem for parents and school district since it was signed. I'm glad the court decided something, I'm just not sure I agree with the decision.

I won't get into ADHD, that's for a different rant.

Marlene said...

I think this is very scary... It is going to make things harder for parents... Specially parents that want the school to pay for A.B.A. Now we are going to have to let the school mess up with our kids, and wait until they regress to be able to prove that they are not providing an appropriate education... A hard price to pay...