Washington – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that parents of special-education students who dispute instructional plans for their children have the burden of proving why the plans are inadequate.
The case, brought by a Maryland couple who wanted the burden of proof shifted to the school system, was followed by educators and parents throughout the nation. The 6-2 ruling maintains putting the burden on parents, which is the practice in most states.
Parents had argued that school systems were better suited to bear the burden of proof in disagreements about special-education plans because they have more resources and information. But public school educators said parents challenging a plan should have to prove the schools were wrong and worried that a change would cost millions of dollars in new litigation.
“Absent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority, “we will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.”
The federal Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act guarantees disabled students an education tailored to their individual needs and gives families a right to a formal hearing before a neutral decision-maker if they believe school officials have not come up with an adequate plan.
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 dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts did not vote in the case argued two days after he took office.
It was one of the most important education cases to reach the court in years.
The case attracted attention from disability-rights advocates and educators because more than 6.4 million children – about 13.4 percent of the national public school population – receive special education under the disabilities act.
“For a long time, special-education kids had no rights,” said Charlie Russo, a professor at the University of Dayton’s School of Education in Ohio. “Now critics would say we’ve gone too far. I see this (ruling) as coming back to the middle. Special-education students have rights, but they’re going to have to trust that school systems are doing what should be done.”
