Search results
SCHAFFER V. WEAST SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. SCHAFFER, a minor, by his parents and next friends, SCHAFFER et ux, et al. v. WEAST, SUPERINTENDENT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit. No. 04–698. Argued October 5, 2005—Decided November 14, 2005
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 ...
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 Schaffers challenged the ALJ’s findings in federal district court, specifically suing MCPS’s superintendent, Jerry Weast, and MCPS’s Board of Education (defendants). During the federal-court proceedings, the Schaffers accepted MCPS’s offer to place Brian in a high school with a special learning center.
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.
14 lis 2005 · In sum, the Act provides for school board action, followed by (1) mediation, (2) an impartial state due process hearing with the possibility of state appellate review, and, (3) federal district court review.
14 lis 2005 · The District Court reversed, concluding that the burden of persuasion is on the school district. The Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court, concluding that petitioners had offered no persuasive reason to depart from the normal rule of allocating the burden to the party seeking relief.
