Source: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0054.htm
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 23:50:53
Document Index: 552389474

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 1', '§ 4']

BURDEN OF PROOF IN SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS HEARINGS
Location:EDUCATION - SPECIAL; February 3, 2010
2010-R-0054
You asked for background information and an explanation of the issue of “burden of proof” in special education due process hearings in Connecticut.
Special education due process hearings are impartial administrative hearings held to resolve disputes between parents and public agencies, usually school districts, over the evaluation or educational placement of, or individualized educational program established for, a child requiring special education. Although such a hearing may be requested by either a parent or a school district, in practice, most are requested by parents.
Although federal law requires due process hearings to resolve disputes, it does not specify which party to a hearing bears the burden of proof (i.e., is required to prove its claim that a special education program or placement is or is not appropriate for a particular child). In 2005, because the federal law is silent on this point, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the burden falls on the plaintiff (i.e., the party requesting the hearing) to prove his or her claims. At the same time, the Court declined to decide whether states could choose not to follow this rule.
Connecticut State Board of Education (SBE) regulations adopted in 2000 place the burden of proof in all special education due process hearings on the school district. This means that, even when the parent is the plaintiff, school districts must prove that their special education decisions are appropriate.
Bills introduced in 2007 and 2009 sought to override the regulation to require plaintiffs to bear the burden of proof, but the Education Committee did not report favorably on either proposal.
State and federal laws require school districts to identify children with disabilities that affect their educational performance and provide them with a “free and appropriate public education” tailored to their individual needs (20 USC 1400 et seq; CGS §§ 10-76a-10-76i). To meet this requirement, school districts must evaluate children referred for special education to determine if they are eligible and create an individualized educational program (IEP) for each eligible child. The IEP establishes the student's educational placement and the educational and related services the school district must provide.
Under state and federal law, if a parent disagrees with a school district on his or her child's evaluation, placement, or IEP, or if a school district fails to provide the child with a free appropriate education that meets his or her needs, the parent may request a “due process” hearing before an impartial hearing officer. School districts may also request such hearings when a parent refuses to consent to a child's evaluation or placement (CGS § 10-76h; 20 USC 1415).
In Connecticut, special education due process hearings are held before impartial special education hearing officers appointed by the State Department of Education. Hearings are conducted according to procedures established in federal and state special education laws and regulations. Both parties to the hearing may be represented by legal counsel, present evidence and sworn testimony, and cross-examine witnesses. Decisions must be written and include both findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Once the hearing officer issues his or her decision on the matter, any aggrieved party may appeal it to state or federal court.
BURDEN OF PROOF Federal Law
The federal special education law establishes detailed procedural requirements for special education due process hearings. But it does not specify which party, the parent or the school district, has the burden of proof in such a hearing.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, because federal law was silent on the issue, the standard legal default rule that the plaintiffs in a case bear the burden of proving their claims should apply. Thus, it ruled that “the burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief” (Schaffer v. Weast, 446 U.S. 49, November 14, 2005). In its decision, the Court expressly declined to rule on whether a state law or regulation could, if the state wished, override this default rule. The Schaffer case involved a Maryland school district and, like the federal law, Maryland's state special education law and regulations take no position on the burden of proof issue. Thus, the Court did not decide whether a state law or regulation could apply a different burden of proof requirement.
Connecticut's special education burden of proof requirement is different from the one determined by the Supreme Court ruling. In all cases, Connecticut requires the school district or other public agency responsible for providing special education to prove its placement or program appropriate. This rule applies even when the parent requests the due process hearing.
Connecticut's burden of proof requirement is not part of the special education due process statute (CGS § 10-76h). Rather, it is SBE regulations that require that, “in all cases . . . the public agency has the burden of proving the appropriateness of the child's program or placement, or of the program or placement proposed by the public agency” (Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-14). The regulations define the “public agency” as a local or regional school board, the state vocational-technical school system, a state agency unified school district, or any other state agency that is responsible for providing special education and related services to eligible children. PROPOSED LEGISLATION
In 2007 and 2009, the General Assembly's Education Committee raised bills to override the SBE's regulation and place the burden of proof in special education due process hearings on the party that requests the hearing. Since most due process hearing requests come from parents, this change would relieve school districts of the requirement that, when challenged, they prove the appropriateness of a special education placement or program.
In public hearings on the bills, school districts and municipalities supported the change, while the State Department of Education, parents of special education students, and advocacy groups for people with disabilities opposed it. The Education Committee took no favorable action on either proposal (2007 Raised Bill 7176, § 1 and 2009 Raised Bill 1142, § 4).