WHEN WE consider special education programs for learning-disabled students, bureaucracy is not the first thing that comes to mind. Instead, we contemplate the loftier goals of such programs -- minimizing disadvantages and creating opportunities for those with special needs. But as many educators can attest, debates over which students deserve which services are often inundated with red tape, leaving students without assistance which may prove beneficial to them. In a Monday decision, the U.S. Supreme Court only worsened that problem, requiring that parents bear the burden of proof in any challenges they bring against school officials regarding their children's special education needs.
The case, Schaffer v. Weast, originated in Maryland and concerned the proper interpretation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which Congress passed in 1970. According to the Associated Press, the law affects the education of over six million students. The language of the act does not specify whether school officials or parents must shoulder the burden of proof in special education litigation. Such litigation can involve individualized education programs, placement and eligibility for special education.
The challenge was originally brought in 1997, when Brian Schaffer had completed elementary school and was prepared to enter middle school. According to the Court's decision, written by departing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Schaffer's learning disabilities were specific to language impairment. His IEP specified that he could attend either of two middle schools in Montgomery County, Maryland. But his parents were unhappy with the recommendation made by his IEP, and felt that their son required more individualized attention which could be offered in a smaller classroom environment. They initiated the case after enrolling Schaffer in a private school, seeking compensation for the costs of his tuition.
What recourse do parents of a student with special needs have if they object to the ways in which their child's education is being handled? Sadly, it appears that they have little demonstrable recourse, and this was reinforced by the Court's decision. Writing for a six to two majority, O'Connor interpreted IDEA to require that whichever party brings a challenge before a judicial body -- whether it be a school board, state or federal court -- be responsible for bearing the burden of proof as to the inadequacy of an individualized education program.
On one hand, it seems only right that the challenger must assume the burden of proof for his claim, until we take into account the relative weakness of a parent's status in comparison to that of a school official. O'Connor's opinion alleges that "They [parents] are not left to challenge the government without a realistic opportunity to access the necessary evidence, or without an expert with the firepower to match the opposition." But for many concerned parents, this simply equates to wading through more bureaucracy, and at the expense of their children's education. Schaffer's parents, for example, were eventually forced to look outside the Montgomery County school district for a solution when school officials refused to listen to their pleas. They chose to enroll Schaffer in a private school, where they were given more say over the particularities of his classroom situation.
Perhaps the Montgomery County school district rightly denied the Schaffers' request: IDEA was never meant to allow parents to coerce school officials into unquestioningly submitting to their claims. Still, we must keep in mind that it was intended to provide realistic recourse to parents of children whose special needs are being ignored or not met adequately. And it is clear that, compared to school officials, parents are relatively disempowered in making their arguments in front of judicial bodies: Their lack of knowledge concerning technical specifics places parents at an immediate disadvantage, and largely serves to render their claims useless. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion, "School districts are charged with responsibility to offer each disabled child an individualized educational program (IEP) suitable to the child's special needs. The proponent of the IEP, it seems to me, is properly called upon to demonstrate its adequacy." This, it seems, is the proper interpretation of IDEA should we want its original intentions to be served.
Todd Rosenbaum's column appears Thursdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at trosenbaum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
