District of Columbia Board of Education places the burden of proof on parents who challenge adequacy of their child's IEP
In a preliminary vote, the District of Columbia Board of Education has approved a controversial proposal that will place the burden of proof on parents who seek due process hearings to challenge the adequacy of instructional plans for their special needs children. The board will take a final vote on the matter after a public comment period. Board members have been divided over the measure since it was introduced last year. Supporters claim that it will reduce the school system's $300 million special education budget, while opponents argue that the measure will make it more difficult for parents with special needs children to obtain assistance. As a compromise, the current proposal will be effective for one year and then evaluated to determine whether the number of due process hearings has decreased, whether the school system is winning more of those cases, and whether more disputes are settled in resolution meetings. "Saving money would be the critical measure," says board vice president Carolyn N. Graham. The current policy, in place for 30 years, places the burden on the school system in apparent recognition that its programs are deficient and schools are often unable to meet special education students' needs. However, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld placing the burden on the parents, D.C. school officials moved to align their policy with the ruling.
The school system's general counsel's office initially suggested that placing the burden on parents would help reduce special education costs driven in part by an inordinate number of due process hearings, which result in millions of dollars in tuition fees when the system is ordered to place students in private schools. Newly hired general counsel Abbey Hairston told board members she is uncertain whether the new policy will save money. She says the benefit of placing the burden on parents is that they will have an incentive to work harder to resolve their disputes without having to resort to due process hearings. "In reviewing this, the savings of money is not the primary issue," she says. "I think we need to find ways for people not to use litigation to solve their problems." Board member William Lockridge opposes the proposal. "Until we build a strong special education system in the District, parents will feel uncomfortable with the level of services for the kids," he says, "Get it right and then we'll save money." A recent Council of the Great City Schools study said D.C. could save money by changing the rule. Special education advocates disagree, saying hearing officers often rule against the system because it has missed deadlines for assessing students or for completing their instructional plans and has lacked in-house programs that other systems typically offer.
Washington PostBy V. Dion Haynes
[Link to full story][
Editor's Note: For background on the D.C. discussion, the Supreme Court decision, and the study, see below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on D.C. proposal]