Schaffer v. Weast

Last updated

Schaffer v. Weast, [1] 546 U.S. 49 (2005), is a Supreme Court case that determined that the burden of proof belonged to whoever challenged an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Schaffer v. Weast revised the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which had introduced IEPs as a method of ensuring an individual and effective education for disabled students. Prior to Schaffer v. Weast, when any party challenged an IEP, the burden of proof was almost always placed on the respective school system. [2]

Contents

Question Raised

Who is assigned the burden of proof if parents or a school system decide to legally challenge an IEP?

Decision

On November 14, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a 6-2 ruling in favor of Schaffer. After the case, Justice O’Connor stated that  “If parents believe their child's IEP is inappropriate, they may request an "impartial due process hearing." §1415(f). The Act is silent, however, as to which party bears the burden of persuasion at such a hearing. We hold that the burden lies, as it typically does, on the party seeking relief.” [3]

Background

Jocelyn and Martin Schaffer, parents of Brian Schaffer, sued superintendent Jetty Weast and the Montgomery County Public Schools, because the Schaffer's claimed that their child was not receiving the fair and adequate education that is afforded to all students with disabilities in the United States under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I.D.E.A.). The Schaffer family claimed that the Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.) that was created specifically for Brian – who suffers from learning disabilities and speech impairments – was not working in the best interest of their child.

The district court that heard the case presented by the Schaffer family, held that the Schaffer family was in the right and the school district needed to rectify the situation of providing the supports needed the ensure Brian received a fair and adequate education. When the Fourth Circuit court took the case on appeal, it ruled that the lower court (district court) had mistakenly put the burden of proof on the school system – to prove the student received an adequate and fair education – and that whoever claimed the education plan of the student was not working had to prove so. [4]

Related Research Articles

In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

Special education is the practice of educating students in a way that accommodates their individual differences, disabilities, and special needs. This involves the individually planned and systematically monitored arrangement of teaching procedures, adapted equipment and materials, and accessible settings. These interventions are designed to help individuals with special needs achieve a higher level of personal self-sufficiency and success in school and in their community, which may not be available if the student were only given access to a typical classroom education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No Child Left Behind Act</span> 2002 United States education reform law; repealed 2015

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a U.S. Act of Congress promoted by the Presidency of George W. Bush. It reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and included Title I provisions applying to disadvantaged students. It mandated standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals could improve individual outcomes in education. To receive federal school funding, states had to create and give assessments to all students at select grade levels.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</span> United States law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a piece of American legislation that ensures students with a disability are provided with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their individual needs. IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In 1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title to IDEA. Overall, the goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a disability.

An Individualized Education Program (IEP) is a legal document under United States law that is developed for each public school child in the U.S. who needs special education. It is created through a team of the child's parent(s) and district personnel who are knowledgeable about the child's needs. IEPs must be reviewed every year to keep track of the child's educational progress.

Special education in the United States enables students with exceptional learning needs to access resources through special education programs. These programs did not always exist. "The idea of excluding students with any disability from public school education can be traced back to 1893, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court expelled a student merely due to poor academic ability". This exclusion would be the basis of education for all individuals with special needs for years to come. In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education sparked the belief that the right to a public education applies to all individuals regardless of race, gender, or disability. Finally, special education programs in the United States were made mandatory in 1975 when the United States Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) "(sometimes referred to using the acronyms EAHCA or EHA, or Public Law 94-142) was enacted by the United States Congress in 1975, in response to discriminatory treatment by public educational agencies against students with disabilities." The EAHCA was later modified to strengthen protections to students with disabilities and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA requires states to provide special education and related services consistent with federal standards as a condition of receiving federal funds.

The right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is an educational entitlement of all students in the United States who are identified as having a disability, guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

In the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a special education law that mandates regulation for students with disabilities to protect their rights as students and the rights of their parents. The IDEA requires that all students receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), and that these students should be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). To determine what an appropriate setting is for a student, an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team will review the student's strengths, weaknesses, and needs, and consider the educational benefits from placement in any particular educational setting. By law the team is required to include the student's parent or guardian, a general education teacher, a special education teacher, a representative of the local education agency, someone to interpret evaluation results and, if appropriate, the student. It is the IEP team's responsibility to determine what environment is the LRE for any given student with disabilities, which varies between every student. The goal of an IEP is to create the LRE for that student to learn in. For some students, mainstream inclusion in a standard classroom may be an appropriate setting whereas other students may need to be in a special education classroom full time, but many students fall somewhere within this spectrum. Students may also require supplementary aids and services to achieve educational goals while being placed in a classroom with students without disabilities, these resources are provided as needed. The LRE for a student is less of a physical location, and more of a concept to ensure that the student is receiving the services that they need to be successful.

The Post Secondary Transition For High School Students with Disabilities refers to the ordinance that every public school district in the United States must provide all students with disabilities ages 3 through 21 with an individualized and free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. President Gerald R. Ford established this right when in 1975 he signed Public Law 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). Parents of children with disabilities and other advocates hailed EAHCA as the "education civil rights act" for their children. Public education gives students with disabilities the opportunity to succeed in life. Specific language on transition was included in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, and again in the IDEA Amendments of 1997. Special education programs in public schools within the United States receive several different funds through federal and state levels to support the programs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IDEA 2004</span>

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is a United States law that mandates equity, accountability, and excellence in education for children with disabilities. As of 2018, approximately seven million students enrolled in U.S. schools receive special education services due to a disability.

For education in the United States, an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) is a plan to obtain special education services for young children aged 0–3 years within U.S. public schools. It is provided by a community agency or home school district to families of children with developmental delays or specific health conditions according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

In the United States, Extended School Year (ESY) services are designed to support a student with a disability as documented under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to maintain the academic, social/behavioral, communication, or other skills that they have learned as part of their Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Section 504 accommodation plan. In order for a student to receive ESY services, the student must have evidenced substantial regression and recoupment issues during the previous IEP year and/or there is evidence of emerging skills which are often referred to as "breakthrough" skills. The focus of the services provided to the student as part of an ESY program are generally not upon learning new skills or "catching up" to grade level, but rather to provide practice to maintain previously acquired or learned skills. In some cases ESY is focused on continuing education for students whose rate of progress is insufficient to enable effective progress during the regular school year. If a student has received ESY services in previous years the student may not be eligible in future years as determinations for eligibility of ESY services are made annually by the IEP or 504 plan

  1. Under the re-authorization of IDEA, effective July 1, 2005, each public agency must ensure that extended school year services are available as necessary to provide Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), consistent with paragraph (a)(2).
  2. Extended school year services must be provided only if a child's IEP Team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 300.320 through 300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the child.
  3. In implementing the requirements of this section, a public agency may not—
    1. Limit extended school year services to particular categories of disability; or
    2. Unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services.

New York City Board of Education v. Tom F., 552 U.S. 1 (2007), is a legal case in the United States. The case involves the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and tuition reimbursement. The case was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court. Oral arguments took place October 1, 2007. The Court ruled in favor of Tom F. nine days later, on October 10, 2007, affirming the appellate court's decision with a 4–4 split. The decision did not list which justices voted which way, except that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy did not take part. Note that as a majority of justices failed to adopt an opinion in favor of either the school district or the student, the decision of the lower appellate court, permitting tuition reimbursement, remained unaltered.

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) is an independent national American association of parents of children with disabilities, attorneys, advocates, and related professionals who protect the legal and civil rights of students with disabilities and their families. COPAA has a 22-member Board of Directors who run the organization. Board members are selected to be representative of diversity of COPAA's peer-to-peer network and have significant experience in various aspects of COPAA's work. Currently COPAA has more than 3100 members in all states, the District of Columbia and several territories. Over 90% of all of its members, including professionals, are people with disabilities and/or parents and family members of people with disabilities. COPAA accomplishes its mission largely through the work of its network of volunteers, who are supported by the staff of the organization.

The IDEA Fairness Restoration Act is an American legislative proposal first introduced in the United States House of Representatives on November 14, 2007 as H.R.4188. The bill was most recently reintroduced on March 17, 2011 in the Senate as S.613 and in the House as H.R. 1208 The primary sponsors are Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chair of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, Congressmen Chris Van Hollen (D-CT), and Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX). The bill would enable parents of children with disabilities to recover their expert witness fees in due process hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the interpretation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Amy Rowley was a deaf student, whose school refused to provide a sign language interpreter. Her parents filed suit contending violation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. In a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Rehnquist, the Court held that public schools are not required by law to provide sign language interpreters to deaf students who are otherwise receiving an equal and adequate education.

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), is a Supreme Court case involving the burden of proof for the revocation of parental rights. The case arose when the Ulster County, New York, Department of Social Services sought to revoke John Santosky II and Annie Santosky's parental rights to their three children. Under Section 622 of the New York State Family Court Act, the state was permitted to revoke parental rights to a natural child if, after a fair preponderance of the evidence, a court found "permanent neglect." The New York State Family Court found such neglect by using the "fair preponderance" standard. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the burden of proof used.

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 does not command exhaustion of state-level administrative remedies codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the gravamen of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not related to the denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), required schools to provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances." In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The federal government of the United States has limited authority to act on education, and education policy serves to support the education systems of state and local governments through funding and regulation of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. The Department of Education serves as the primary government organization responsible for enacting federal education policy in the United States.

References

  1. ↑ "Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-04-30.
  2. ↑ Conroy, Terrye; Yell, Mitchell L.; Katsiyannis, Antonis (April 1, 2008). "Schaffer v. Weast". Remedial and Special Education. 29 (2): 108–117. doi:10.1177/0741932508317273. ISSN   0741-9325.
  3. ↑ "Schaffer v. Weast: How Will the Decision Affect You? by Peter W. D. Wright, Esq., Wrightslaw.com". www.wrightslaw.com. Retrieved 2024-04-30.
  4. ↑ "Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-04-30.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.