On November 14, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Schaffer v. Weast. This special education decision concerned which party bears the burden of persuasion when parents challenge a school district's Individualized Education Program (IEP) in a due process hearing. In this article, we define burden of persuasion and explain its application in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)–related cases prior to Schaffer; we discuss the relevant history of the case; we summarize the facts and analyze the reasoning of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court's decision; and we address the implications of the Schaffer decision for special educators and for the parents and children served by the IDEA.
Harvard Law Review. (2005). Disability law-Individuals with Disabilities Education Act-Fourth circuit holds that parents bear the burden of proof in a due process hearing against a school district- Weast v. Schaffer, 366 F. 3d 449 (4th Cir. 2004). Harvard Law Review, 118, 1078- 1085.
10.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, P.L. 101-476, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
11.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990).
12.
L. E.; E. S. v. Ramsey Board of Education, 435 F.3d 384 (3rd Cir., 2006).
13.
Leahy, C.T., & Mugmon, M.A. (2005). Allocation of the burden of proof in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act due process challenges. Vermont Law Review, 118, 951-973.
14.
McCormick, C.T. (1999) McCormick on evidence (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
15.
Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F.Supp. 886 (D.D.C. 1972).
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971).
18.
Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families Retrieved January 24, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/index.html
19.
Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 126.S.Ct.528 (2005).
20.
Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984).
21.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, P.L. 88-352, 42 U.S. C. § 2000e et seq.
22.
Weast v. Schaffer, 240 F. Supp. 2d 396 (D. Md., 2002).
23.
Weast v. Schaffer, 377 F. 3d 449 (4th Cir., 2004).
24.
Wright, P.D. (2005, November). How will Schaffer v. Weast affect you? Retrieved January 27, 2006, from http://www.wrightslaw.com
25.
Yell, M.L., Drasgow, E. & Lowrey, K.A. (2005). No Child Left Behind and students with autism spectrum disorderFocus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 130-139.
26.
Yell, M.L., Shriner, J.G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004: Implications for special and general educators, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(1), 1-23.
27.
Yell, M.L., & Stecker, P.M. (2003). Developing legally correct and educationally meaningful IEPs using curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 73-88.
28.
Zirkel, P.A. (2005). Judicial review: The paralyzing fear of education litigation. State Education Standards, 5, 43-44.
