The
U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 6-2 decision in Schaffer
v. Weast ruling that the burden of proof in an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (
IDEA) is on the party seeking relief. The Individualized Education Plan (
IEP) is a blueprint for the services a student in special education will receive as mandated by
IDEA. Normally, developing the
IEP is a collaborative process between the student (and family or guardian) and the school system. When the two parties cannot come to an agreement on the appropriateness or the sufficiency of an
IEP, the
IDEA provides for an "impartial due process hearing," which either party can initiate to challenge the
IEP. The
IDEA is silent as to who has the burden of proof at these hearings.
Brian Schaffer, a student with learning disabilities and speech-language disabilities, and his parents were the Petitioners in this case, and Jerry Weast, Superintendent of the Montgomery County,
MD Public School System was the Respondent. Attorneys for the Schaffers argued that the school system was better able to bear the burden of persuasion regarding the student's
IEP than the student and his parents. The Respondent's argument was that Congress intended the burden to be allocated to the party initiating the hearing and seeking relief. Many parents of students in special education had hoped that the Court's decision would give them more influence in the
IEP process, but school systems were concerned that a ruling on behalf of the Schaffers would force them to spend more money and time in court than in the classroom. The decision in this case will have far-reaching implications for students in special education and their families, educational funding, taxpayers, and the
IDEA program as a whole.
