West Platte R-II School District v. Wilson, No. 05-1973 (8th Cir. Mar. 2, 2006)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that both an administrative panel and the federal district court improperly placed the burden of proof on the school district where the parents were challenging the adequacy of their child’s individualized education plan (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Parents of a learning disabled student receiving special education services from West Platte R-II School District (MO) requested a due process hearing when the school district rejected their request for tutoring services. The parents claimed that the school district had failed to provide the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by IDEA. In ruling for the parents, the administrative panel concluded, “the burden of proving compliance with the IDEA is on the school district.” A federal district court upheld the panel. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case on the ground that both the panel and the district court “assigned the burden of proof to the wrong party.” The appellate court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528 (2005), that the burden of proof in IDEA cases lies with the party initiating the challenge to the IEP. The court pointed out there is clear Eighth Circuit precedent that placing the burden of proof on the wrong party is reversible error. The Eighth Circuit also noted that many factual issues in the case were close and may well have tipped the other way had the burden been placed properly on the parents.
West Platte R-II School District v. Wilson, No. 05-1973 (8th Cir. Mar. 2, 2006)
[Full opinion]
[Editor’s Note: For a summary of Schaffer v. Weast and additional background on the case, access the link below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Schaffer v. Weast]