Idea Case Report

I. INTRODUCTION

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter "IDEA") entitles every disabled child to a "free appropriate public education" specifically structured to meet each child's individual needs. In order to accomplish this, public school systems located in states receiving federal funds for education must create an Individualized Education Program (hereinafter "IEP") for each disabled child within its jurisdiction. The parents of disabled children must be consulted annually in the IEP's design, and may request "an impartial due process hearing" before an administrative law judge (hereinafter "ALJ") in cases where they feel that the IEP is inadequate. In such instances, however, it remains unclear whether the parents or the school system maintains the burden of proof. This comment explains why the burden of proof in IEP disputes should be found to lie with the school system.

Part II of this article takes a brief look at the current stance other jurisdictions take in deciding how to allocate the burden of proof in IDEA cases. Part III sets out relevant factual and procedural occurrences in the case, and details the reasoning of the majority and dissenting opinions. Part IV examines in greater detail the flaws in the majority's analysis, and Part V concludes this case comment.

II. BACKGROUND OF THE LAW

Several jurisdictions have attempted to wrestle with the issue of who should bear the burden of proof in IDEA-prescribed state administrative proceedings initiated by parents to challenge an IEP. Currently, there are three circuits that assign the burden to the parents, and four circuits that assign the burden to the school systems. The Sixth Circuit adheres to traditional principles and encumbers the plaintiff with the burden of proof in IEP disputes. The Fifth and Tenth Circuits also assign the burden of proof to the parents, but do so out in deference to the expertise of the school systems' "education professionals." On the other hand, the Third Circuit assigns the burden of proof to the school system because of its expertise and superior access to information and witnesses. The Second, Eighth, and Ninth circuits also assign the burden of proof to the school systems, but without much explanation in regards to their reasoning.

In a recent case, Weast v. Schaffer, the Fourth Circuit held in a split decision that the burden of proof in an IDEA due process hearing remains with the parents challenging the adequacy of their child's IEP. This decision, however, which underestimates the power that school systems yield in the IEP process, conflicts with the intent of the IDEA, and contradicts traditional common law rules regarding the allocation of the burden of proof.

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Relevant Facts

Brian Schaffer, diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, among other learning disabilities, attended Green Acres private school in Montgomery County from pre-kindergarten through seventh grade. Green Acres was without a special education program at the time, and as a result, Brian struggled mightily in his academic studies. In the autumn of 1997, at the outset of his seventh-grade year, Brian was placed on academic probation. Shortly thereafter, school personnel informed Brian's mother that due to her son's disabilities, it would be in Brian's best interest to seek enrollment at another school better suited to accommodate his needs.

Subsequently, Brian's mother contacted the Herbert Hoover Middle SchoolÐ'--a member of Maryland's Montgomery County Public School System (hereinafter "MCPS")Ð'--to assess Brian's eligibility for special education services. In April of 1998, the MCPS committee entrusted with evaluating special education candidates found that Brian met the requirements for a special education program, and extended him an enrollment offer in an IEP for the upcoming academic year (1998-1999). The proposed IEP consisted of 15-plus hours of special education and 45 minutes of speech therapy each week. Finding this proposal inadequate, due to class size concerns, Brian's parents chose to enroll Brian in private school at McLean. Brian's parents then requested a due process hearing pursuant to the IDEA, seeking to recover from the MCPS the cost of tuition and other expenses associated with their son's private school attendance on the grounds that the MCPS's proposed IEP denied Brian his rights under the IDEA to a "free appropriate education."

B. Procedural History

At the initial due process hearing, because Brian's parents had challenged the substance of the IEP, rather than the process by which it developed, the judgment of the education professionals received deference, and the ALJ assigned Brian's parents the burden of proof in demonstrating the inadequacy of the IEP. Specifically, this meant that Brian's parents needed to establish that the proposed IEP was unreasonably calculated to "enable [Brian] to receive educational benefits." When Brian's parents failed to meet this burden of proof, the ALJ sustained the validity of the IEP proposed by the MCPS.

With their administrative remedies exhausted, Brian's parents sued the MCPS in district court, claiming that the ALJ had erred in assigning them the burden of proof. The district court agreed with Brian's parents and remanded the case back to the ALJ for further proceedings, this time with the burden of proof reallocated to the MCPS. In reconsidering the case commensurate with the district court's order, the ALJ found that the MCPS had failed to prove the appropriateness of the IEP, and ordered the school system to reimburse Brian's parents for partial expenses accrued during the 1998-1999 school year.

Displeased with this outcome, the MCPS returned to district court and requested a reversal of the ALJ's reassignment of the burden of proof. The district court, however, reaffirmed the finding that the school system bore the burden of proof in the case, and upheld the ALJ's decision. In addition, the district court proceeded in setting aside the ALJ's ruling on tuition and expenses and awarded full reimbursement to Brian's parents on the matter.

The school system appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a divided panel reversed the district court's decision. In doing so, the majority held that the burden of proof in the administrative hearing rests with the parents challenging the adequacy of the IEP.