Case Three: The Private School Option

Brian Schaffer, A Minor, By His Parents and Next Friends, Jocelyn and Martin Shaffer, Et Al, Petitioners

v.

Jerry Weast, Superintendent, Montgomery County Public Schools, Et Al.

No. 04-698

Argued: October 5, 2005

Decided: November 14, 2005

This case revolves around Brian Schaffer, a student with pronounced learning and speech pathology disabilities. Brian had been enrolled in private schools from kindergarten through seventh grade. He progressed from grade to grade but struggled academically. Finally, the private school, aware of its shortcomings, suggested to Brian’s parents that he might receive more comprehensive services within a public school setting—in this case, from Montgomery (Maryland) County Public Schools. After investigated a possible placement in two public middle schools, his parents found both the schools and the proposed Individual Education Plans (IEP’s) proffered by the schools to be inefficient and unsupportive of Brian’s special needs. His parents returned him to a private school and filed a suit against the school system asking for remuneration for the cost of tuition at the private school. Thus, the case came down to the following question: who bears the burden of proof of efficacy when it comes to creation of an IEP—the parent (the plaintiff) or the system (the defendant).

In Maryland, cases related to contesting the contents of IEP’s are adjudicated by Administrative Law Judges (ALJ’s). In Brian’s case, the ALJ initially ruled against Brian’s contention, suggesting that his parents had failed to bear the burden of proof, thereby defining the key term for the entire case—including the request for remuneration of tuition fees.

As the case moved through appeals, the term “burden of proof” was roundly debated. Brian continued through school and eventually graduated. Eventually, the ALJ reversed its decision and ruled in favor of Brian’s parents stating that the burden of proof weighed on the system, not the parents. Subsequently, the Fourth Circuit of Appeals vacated this ruling and suggested that the burden of proof weighs on the party seeking monetary relief. Upon final appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the lower courts ruling. Parents seeking monetary relief to pay for private school tuition bear the burden of proof that the school system did not sufficiently, though a valid IEP, offer “free and adequate” placement of Brian.

In her written opinion, Justice O’Connor noted that the very term “burden of proof” is one of “slipperiest members of the family of legal terms.” Despite this assertion, she deemed that any party seeking monetary award must, by a preponderance of legal precedence, show that they have been harmed. She noted clearly that school systems, however, also bear a burden regarding IEP’s under IDEA, but to award in favor of the plaintiffs would put every single IEP current or past into a legal state of limbo that would be unacceptable. She also noted  that the course perforce must assume that schools are writing IEP’s correctly.

This case is truly significant because it gives a pronounced level of legal protection to school systems—chiefly that parents suing them bare the burden of proof as related to inefficient IEP’s or requests for monetary award to pay for private school tuition.