Search results
This case concerns the educational services that were due, under IDEA, to petitioner Brian Schaffer. Brian suffers from learning disabilities and speech-language impairments. From prekindergarten through seventh grade he attended a private school and struggled academically.
Schaffer v. Weast , [ 1 ] 546 U.S. 49 (2005), is a Supreme Court case that determined that the burden of proof belonged to whoever challenged an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Weast revised the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which had introduced IEPs as a method of ensuring an individual and effective education for ...
Facts. In 1997, Brian Schaffer (plaintiff), a child with learning disabilities and speech-language impairments, planned to enter Montgomery County Public Schools System (MCPS) as an eighth-grader. MCPS convened an individualized-education-program (IEP) team for Brian, which was mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
5 paź 2005 · Facts of the case. The parents of Brian Schaffer, a disabled child, sued their public school district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Schaffer's parents claimed the Individualized Education Program that the school system devised for their son, and which IDEA required for each disabled student, was inadequate.
5 paź 2005 · Weast v. Schaffer, 377 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2004). The Fourth Circuit reasoned that placing the burden on the school system would create a “presumption of inadequacy” that cut against the IDEA's reliance on the school system's expertise. The case is now scheduled for oral argument in the United States Supreme Court on October 5, 2005.
Initially, the administrative law judge (ALJ) held that the parents bore the burden of persuasion, ruling in favor of the school district. The parents then filed in federal district court. The district court reversed the ALJ’s decision, saying the burden lay with the school district.
1 mar 2009 · In a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Schaffer v. Weast, the high court ruled that the burden of persuasion in special education due process hearings should fall on the party that challenges a student's IEP.
