4th Circuit Weighs in on Burden of Proof in IDEA Cases
Weast v. Schaffer, 2004 WL 1688326 (4th Cir. Jul 29, 2004)
The Fourth Circuit has joined three other circuits (5th, 6th and 10th) in placing the burden on parents to prove that the IEP the school district has proposed is inadequate. According to the opinion, circuits that place the burden on the district include the 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 9th and possibly the DC Circuit (at least in cases of procedural inadequacy).
In this unilateral placement case, the parents of a middle school student with ADHD and learning disabilities attempted to prove that the IEP was substantively inadequate. Although the IEP’s substantive deficit is not entirely clear from the opinion, it appears that an important issue in the case was the class size at the public school.
The student argued that due to the fact that school districts have a natural advantage in IEP disputes by reason of their greater expertise and resources, districts should have the burden of proof in IEP disputes.
The court responded:
The IDEA is silent about which side bears the burden of proof … When
a statute is silent, the burden of proof is normally allocated to the party initiating the proceeding and seeking relief… The IDEA and its implementing regulations require an open process that makes relevant information and special services, such as the independent evaluation, available to parents. By the time the IEP is finally developed, parents have been provided with substantial information about their child’s educational situation and prospects. They have continuing access to information and anticipated evidence once a hearing is requested. In sum, Congress has taken into account the natural advantage a school system might have in the IEP process, including the administrative hearing, by providing the explicit protections … As a result, the school system has no unfair information or resource advantage that compels us to reassign the burden of proof to the school system when the parents initiate the proceeding. …
The dissent would assign the burden of proof to the school system because of its “distinct, inherent advantage” over parents when it comes
to proposing and evaluating educational plans for disabled children… Parents… “lack the comprehensive understanding … [and] means to assess the likely benefit of available alternatives.” [W]hen Congress designed and passed the IDEA, it was keenly aware that school systems
have professional expertise and that parents do not. It was for this
very reason that Congress imposed statutory safeguards to assist
parents in becoming substantively informed. If Congress considered burden of proof at all, it no doubt recognized that allocating the burden to
school systems is not the kind of help parents really need in challenging IEPs. For regardless of which side has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing, parents will have to offer expert testimony to show that the proposed IEP is inadequate. Shifting the burden of proof… will not enable parents by themselves to mount a serious, substantive challenge to an IEP. Congress recognized that parents need professional assistance, and the IDEA therefore allows parents who prevail in due process hearings to recover their fees for hiring lawyers. If experience shows that parents do not have sufficient access to substantive expertise under the current statutory scheme, Congress should be called upon to take further remedial steps. As far as procedure is concerned, however, we have no convincing reason to depart from the traditional burden of proof in IDEA due process hearings.