Search results
They urge that we should interpret the statutory words “due process” in light of their constitutional meaning, and apply the balancing test established by Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976).
On November 14, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a 6-2 ruling in favor of Schaffer. After the case, Justice O’Connor stated that “If parents believe their child's IEP is inappropriate, they may request an "impartial due process hearing." §1415(f).
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.
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.
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.
