Oct. 6, 2005
U.S. Supreme Court hears MCPS lawsuit
The U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments yesterday in "Schaffer v. Weast," a dispute between MCPS and a family advocating for a student's special education rights.
The case questions whether parents or the school system bears the burden of proof in establishing that an Individual Education Program (IEP) is adequate. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), school systems are required to create IEPs to ensure that students with disabilities receive sufficient resources from schools.
Jocelyn and Martin Schaffer were not satisfied with the IEP that MCPS developed for their son, Brian, in 1998. They placed him in a private school, the McLean School of Maryland, and filed to receive reimbursement from MCPS for the private school tuition.
The Schaffers paid for private testing that showed that Brian Schaffer should be in classes with six or seven students, said Jocelyn Schaffer. They said MCPS failed to provide an appropriate public education mandated by the IDEA. Under MCPS's proposed IEP, Brian Schaffer would have been in classes with over 20 students and a trained special educator, according to the Schaffers. They believe the school system has the responsibility to prove that an IEP is adequate.
MCPS maintained that special education litigation should follow legal precedent, where the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. This is part of the "traditional rules of the court," according to Brian Edwards, communications director for MCPS.
Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in most legal cases, but there are exceptions, said Miguel Méndez, a professor at Stanford University Law School. "The general rule is that the plaintiff bears the proof," said Méndez. "The courts can change this. When defendants have more evidence, sometimes courts put burden of proof on them."
Making the plan
In Montgomery County, IEPs are developed in conjunction with parents, said Edwards, who believes that MCPS provides excellent special education services. "MCPS has extremely dedicated special education teachers and staff," said Edwards. "We are known for our excellent special education programs."
Some parents of special-education students disagree with Edwards's analysis. Bob Astrove, a parent of two MCPS special-education students and a longtime education activist, said MCPS should have to prove that IEPs are sufficient. "They're the ones proposing the plans; they're the ones who implement the services. The school system has all the experts; they control all of the research," said Astrove. "It's not a level playing field."
According to Astrove, MCPS uses litigation as a way to avoid improving special education services. "[MCPS] would rather litigate than educate," he said.
Diana Lautenberger, the mother of a special-education student, agrees that MCPS uses legal power to avoid enriching IEPs. Lautenberger is unsatisfied with how MCPS has administered special education programs for her son. "[MCPS] didn't want him; that was very clear. They made it very difficult for him. They didn't give him the support he needed to be successful. He began to deteriorate," said Lautenberger. "When I said, `You're not meeting my son's needs,' they said, `Prove it.'"
Most of the parents whom Board of Education member Sharon Cox has met have been satisfied with their children's special education programs. "I have spoken with many parents who say that their experiences with the school system have been terrific," said Cox. "MCPS makes every effort to provide the services that a child needs."
Blair's 250 special education students are among the 17,000 of MCPS's 140,000 students who need such programs.
Meetings to design IEPs involve school psychologists, teachers, speech pathologists, counselors, parents and the student being evaluated, said Lisa Davisson, Blair's special education resource teacher. She added that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Schaffer would make it harder to help design IEPs and administer special education programs because of extra legal precautions.
When school officials decide MCPS cannot provide quality services to a special-education student, the county pays for the student to attend a private school. Currently, 650 MCPS special-education students are in private schools, costing the county $32 million per year, according to Edwards. This expenditure constitutes over 10 percent of MCPS's $310.7 million special education budget. At Blair, Davisson annually refers about one student for placement at another public school or in a private school.
In Schaffer's case, a decision was not reached in an IEP meeting to place Schaffer in a private school. Schaffer's parents decided on their own to enroll their son in a private school, and they sued MCPS for reimbursement, said Jocelyn Schaffer.
In 1998, a judge ruled in favor of MCPS, according to Wrightslaw, a special education research group. Since then, a series of appeals from both the Schaffers and MCPS led the case through the U.S. Court of Appeals, which decided in favor of MCPS, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case questions whether parents or the school system bears the burden of proof in establishing that an Individual Education Program (IEP) is adequate. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), school systems are required to create IEPs to ensure that students with disabilities receive sufficient resources from schools.
Jocelyn and Martin Schaffer were not satisfied with the IEP that MCPS developed for their son, Brian, in 1998. They placed him in a private school, the McLean School of Maryland, and filed to receive reimbursement from MCPS for the private school tuition.
The Schaffers paid for private testing that showed that Brian Schaffer should be in classes with six or seven students, said Jocelyn Schaffer. They said MCPS failed to provide an appropriate public education mandated by the IDEA. Under MCPS's proposed IEP, Brian Schaffer would have been in classes with over 20 students and a trained special educator, according to the Schaffers. They believe the school system has the responsibility to prove that an IEP is adequate.
MCPS maintained that special education litigation should follow legal precedent, where the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. This is part of the "traditional rules of the court," according to Brian Edwards, communications director for MCPS.
Plaintiffs have the burden of proof in most legal cases, but there are exceptions, said Miguel Méndez, a professor at Stanford University Law School. "The general rule is that the plaintiff bears the proof," said Méndez. "The courts can change this. When defendants have more evidence, sometimes courts put burden of proof on them."
Making the plan
In Montgomery County, IEPs are developed in conjunction with parents, said Edwards, who believes that MCPS provides excellent special education services. "MCPS has extremely dedicated special education teachers and staff," said Edwards. "We are known for our excellent special education programs."
Some parents of special-education students disagree with Edwards's analysis. Bob Astrove, a parent of two MCPS special-education students and a longtime education activist, said MCPS should have to prove that IEPs are sufficient. "They're the ones proposing the plans; they're the ones who implement the services. The school system has all the experts; they control all of the research," said Astrove. "It's not a level playing field."
According to Astrove, MCPS uses litigation as a way to avoid improving special education services. "[MCPS] would rather litigate than educate," he said.
Diana Lautenberger, the mother of a special-education student, agrees that MCPS uses legal power to avoid enriching IEPs. Lautenberger is unsatisfied with how MCPS has administered special education programs for her son. "[MCPS] didn't want him; that was very clear. They made it very difficult for him. They didn't give him the support he needed to be successful. He began to deteriorate," said Lautenberger. "When I said, `You're not meeting my son's needs,' they said, `Prove it.'"
Most of the parents whom Board of Education member Sharon Cox has met have been satisfied with their children's special education programs. "I have spoken with many parents who say that their experiences with the school system have been terrific," said Cox. "MCPS makes every effort to provide the services that a child needs."
Blair's 250 special education students are among the 17,000 of MCPS's 140,000 students who need such programs.
Meetings to design IEPs involve school psychologists, teachers, speech pathologists, counselors, parents and the student being evaluated, said Lisa Davisson, Blair's special education resource teacher. She added that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Schaffer would make it harder to help design IEPs and administer special education programs because of extra legal precautions.
When school officials decide MCPS cannot provide quality services to a special-education student, the county pays for the student to attend a private school. Currently, 650 MCPS special-education students are in private schools, costing the county $32 million per year, according to Edwards. This expenditure constitutes over 10 percent of MCPS's $310.7 million special education budget. At Blair, Davisson annually refers about one student for placement at another public school or in a private school.
In Schaffer's case, a decision was not reached in an IEP meeting to place Schaffer in a private school. Schaffer's parents decided on their own to enroll their son in a private school, and they sued MCPS for reimbursement, said Jocelyn Schaffer.
In 1998, a judge ruled in favor of MCPS, according to Wrightslaw, a special education research group. Since then, a series of appeals from both the Schaffers and MCPS led the case through the U.S. Court of Appeals, which decided in favor of MCPS, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Discuss this Article
MoCo in the news yo
But take Blair alone: The school is already tasked with educating 3000 kids without special education needs. Now add 250 special ed students, each of whom needs individualized attention and time from "school psychologists, teachers, speech pathologists, [and] counselors". That costs money. It's a wonder MCPS can give even an "acceptable" education to these kids, let alone "adequate". If every parent is given the precedent to sue because they don't think their kid is getting quite enough special help, it's not gonna help the situation.
Right now, the 650 MCPS special-ed students in private schools (out of a total of 17,000 special-ed kids, equals 3.8%) are costing the county 10% of its special-ed budget. Now imagine if 100% instead of 3.8% could sue to be sent off to private schools at the county's expense. Even if only 40% of the special ed kids in the county won such a lawsuit, the county's cost for THOSE 40% ALONE would already be equal to the current total special ed budget. There's not enough money for every individual need. You can't get every little thing you want for your child for free. That's reality.
Or that my parents should be reimbursed for sending me to private school.
Approximately 12.4 percent of MCPS students have disabilities. Yet Blair claims that only 8.4 percent of its students have disabilities. (According to MCPS schools at a glance).
Where are the rest of the special education students who live in the Blair cluster? Maybe Blair "only" refers one student annually for placement outside Blair because Blair's cluster and feeder schools have already sent its special education students to other placements before they even get to high school.
Since 1999, the year that Dr. Weast became Superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools, the Maryland State Department of Education has conducted investigations and issued 9 separate Letters of Finding that MCPS violated the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act with respect to my dyslexic child's education. MSDE found that MCPS denied my child required instruction; did not provide required accommodations during the school year and on the Maryland State High School Assessment; inaccurately measured and reported my child's educational progress; failed to provide my child with required access to assistive technology; denied parents access to their child’s educational record; provided inaccurate information to MSDE investigators; and did not fulfill its obligation to take corrective actions within the timeline required.
Sue Allison
Coordinator, Marylanders Against High Stakes Testing www.geocities.com/stophsa
But wait . . .
I’ve got an idea! After all the litigious special education parents have sued the pants off our school systems, let’s allow the parents of regular ed kids, who will be sitting on the floor in classrooms with fifty-seven students (there must be adequately small class sizes for the disabled, you know, and teachers and classrooms don’t grow on trees!) sue the evil systems too for providing an inappropriate setting for THEIR children! Perhaps they could even sue for a private school education like the Schaffers did! Of course, that will cost tons of money, so we can just raise the taxes really high. Do you know what it’s called when taxes are high and the government provides the people’s resources? Socialism! That would fit just swell with our current values system!
I think it’s just SUPER that a cognitively or emotionally disabled child can be anything they want to these days. Why, I’m all for incorporating IDEA into our workplaces. Why not make sure all of the special education students get free and appropriate job guidelines, too? That way, if Mandy (whose learning disability causes her to transpose numbers) wants to work for a corporate accounting firm, her bosses will appreciate her diversity instead of being a bunch of old meanies when she creates a seven figure boo-boo for the firm. Reach for the stars!
But seriously . . . In RealityLand, it doesn't take a rocket scientist--or a fascist, so don't go there--to see the long-term implications for our society. A nation who spends the majority of its money educating a struggling minority, while neglecting its higher functioning majority, is headed for trouble. If the courts concede that the proof of burden rests on the school systems, we’d better get used to the idea of being a struggling nation.
With liberty and justice for all (even the EVIL MAJORITY)--
Delphi
Keep up the good reporting!
Don't you think that the children with disabilities should get the chance to have an equal opportunity to succeed, or is it just every man for himself? I can see that you are very empethetic.
When a child who injures others and him or herself becomes an adult with the same condition, just as severe?
And yes, education makes a difference for a lot of special education students. Maybe they can't ever integrate into our everyday society, but things like learning not to hit others is important.
Even if the government doesn't need to pay more for services... they will have to pay more to keep some of these disabled persons in jail.
(I mean absolutely no offense to the disabled by the example of a disabled person that hurts themselves and others - I just understand this issue because I have a friend who did so in the past.)