This was on the Autism Society of Illinois homepage...Could it be??? Supporting parents??? What a wonderful change! (now lets see if it actually works!!!)
Dear Mr. Kennedy,
Attorney General Madigan has asked me to respond to your letter urging her favorable consideration of the amicus brief drafted by Virginia in Schaffer v. Weast. I am pleased to report the Attorney General did join the brief on behalf of the State of Illinois.
If I could provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General
Education: Supreme Court IDEA case
In April, 2005, ASI contacted Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office to ask that the State of Illinois support parents in what could be a landmark special education case. Schaffer v. Weast is the "burden of proof" case that will be heard by the U. S. Supreme Court this fall. The issue to be decided is whether the burden of proof in a special education case should be on the parents who file for due process, or on the school district to prove their proposed placement is appropriate. As is common in Supreme Court cases, many organizations have filed amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs. Some support the parents’ case, some support school districts. More than 20 organizations and nine states have now filed briefs in support of parents of children with disabilities. We are pleased to inform you that Illinois is now one of the states supporting the parents’ position. The group of nine States is headed by Virginia and includes Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. Sadly, Hawaii is supporting the school district position.
This is the case in question...
Schaffer v. Weast
This case involves a dispute between the Schaffers and the Board of Education of Montgomery County, Maryland. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires public school systems to provide an Individual Education Program (IEP) for all disabled children in their jurisdictions. After the Schaffers learned of their child’s learning disability, they asked the Board for an IEP. Dissatisfied with the IEP proposed by the Board, the Schaffers enrolled their child in private school and sought reimbursement for the private school tuition in an administrative hearing.
Because the IDEA does not state who bears the burden of proof in such a hearing, the administrative judge placed the burden on the Schaffers because they brought the action. The Schaffers sought review in the district court, which held that the burden of proof should have been placed on the Board and returned the case to the administrative judge. The administrative judge ruled in favor of the Schaffers this time and ordered partial reimbursement of the private school tuition. The Board then challenged the administrative ruling, which the district court affirmed and ordered the Board to fully reimburse the Schaffers for the private school tuition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that the burden of proof should have been placed on the Schaffers because the default rule places the burden of proof on the party bringing an action when a statute is silent on the matter.
Question Presented:
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when parents of a disabled child and a local school district reach an impasse over the child’s individualized education program, either side has a right to bring the dispute to an administrative hearing officer for resolution. At the hearing, which side has the burden of proof – the parents or the school district?
From what I understand...it's to be decided in Oct-Nov this year.