Washington, D.C. school board tabled resolution seeking to change a law, that puts the burden of proof on the school district
The Washington, D.C. school board has tabled a resolution seeking to change a law, that puts the burden of proof on the school district when its instructional plans for special education students are challenged by parents. In a case closely watched by educators nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court in November upheld a Maryland law that puts the burden of proof on parents in such disputes, requiring them to show why a school district's plans will not meet their child's needs. As soon as the ruling was issued, D.C. school officials said they would seek to align their law with Maryland's. But since then, the board has twice put off voting on a resolution asking the D.C. Council to change the law, amid signs that board members are divided. Advocates of the change point out that the D.C. school system spends a disproportionately large amount of its budget on special education and argue that shifting the burden onto parents will reduce the number of legal challenges brought against it and save money. But board members who oppose the change believe requiring the school system to demonstrate the adequacy of the IEP is appropriate in light of the school system's track record of failing to deliver special education services. They also argue that school administrators have offered little in the way of evidence that shifting the burden to parents will have a significant financial impact. Board member Tommy Wells contends the school system's deputy general counsel "did not provide any information to show this would save the District money." Mr. Wells also believes that changing the law will send a message to parents that the school system wants to make it difficult for parents to get services for their child. D.C. is in the minority among states, with most placing the burden on parents. A recent study of the D.C. school system's finances, conducted by Council of the Great City Schools, found D.C. could save significant funds by changing its burden of proof rule but did not estimate of how much would be saved. Some analysts dispute the study, arguing that the D.C. school system typically loses in administrative hearings because it often misses deadlines for assessing students or completing their instructional plans, procedural violations. While deputy general counsel Erika Pierson argues that changing the law will discourage frivolous lawsuits and encourage parents to accept settlement offers, Mary Lee Phelps, interim executive director of the system's Office of Special Education Reform, says that any savings from deterring frivolous lawsuits will be "fairly small."
Washington PostBy V. Dion Haynes
[Link to full story][
Editor's Note: The case referred to is Schaffer v. Weast
, 126 S. Ct. 528, 535 (2005), in which the Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an Individualized Education Program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is properly placed upon the party seeking relief, whether the disabled child or the school district. However, the court declined to address whether states could enact their own laws placing the burden of proof on school districts, because no such state law was at issue in the case. A summary of the decision, with links to additional information including NSBA's amicus
brief in the case, is below. See also the Council of the Great City Schools Report mentioned, which notes that "the district's special education costs—shaped in part by various court orders and past practice that will be hard and time-consuming to reverse—are warping the school system's overall pattern of expenditures more than any other category of spending."]
[NSBA School Law pages on Schaffer v. Weast][Council of the Great City Schools report on financing of D.C. schools]