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 ...
United States Supreme Court. 546 U.S. 49, 126 S. Ct. 528 (2005) Written by Arlyn Katen, JD. 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.
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.
14 lis 2005 · Nonetheless, the hearing officer held that before him was that rara avis–a case of perfect evidentiary equipoise. Hence we must infer from Congress’ silence (and from the rest of the statutory scheme) which party–the parents or the school district–bears the burden of persuasion.
Syllabus. SCHAFFER, A MINOR, BY HIS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, SCHAFFER ET UX, ET AL. v. WEAST, SUPERINTEN-DENT, 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.
