Although it will be years before they are clear, the effects of the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Schaffer v. Weast case may be mediated by the state in which cases are brought, according to an analysis by Elissa Gootman of the New York Times. The court held that the burden of proof is on the party bringing the action; in special education disputes between parents and schools, this is usually parents. Based on interviews with experts (inlcuding Pete Wright) and government officials, Ms. Gootman found that parents face more formidable challenges than they previously faced and that differences in state laws, rules, and regulations are likely to affect the processes and outcomes of cases.
Essentially, states fall into three categories on disputes over individualized education plans. One group includes Texas, Virginia and Maryland, where the Supreme Court upheld what has been in practice. The second group includes New Jersey and New York, where the burden of proof shifts to the parents. In the third group, states including Alabama and Connecticut have regulations or statutes that place the burden of proof on school districts.
I find this intriguing and plan to keep an eye on the topic over the next few years. However, I wonder how much it will matter, in fact. Here’s why I wonder: As I understood the issue before the court, the question was what to do when there is essentially a tie. I probably don’t know enough, so I’d welcome correction, but it seems to me that when parents have a clear case, the burden-of-proof issue isn’t going to arise.
Link to Ms. Gootman’s informative article. Links to previous coverage in LD Blog of Schaffer v. Weast is here, here, and here.
0 Responses to “NY Times on S-v-W case”