Due process rights and legal protections

¶ … Education Law Suits

Across the nation students who are covered under the federal special education act, IDEA, have rights that must be provided. At any time the parents of a student or the student believe that his or her rights are not being upheld they have the right to file for a due process hearing. If the parties involved with the suit do not agree with the results of that hearing they can take it to a court system and have it heard.

This paper provides a detailed description of two court cases that dealt specifically with student due process issues.

Case One

The first case to be discussed is a case about a student whose parents did not agree with the elements contained in the IEP the school wanted to implement.

An IEP is an Individualized Education Plan and the parents have the same amount of power and input to the plan as other members of the IEP team have. In this particular case the student's parents did not agree with the suggestions and refused to sign off on its implementation.

The school reviewed the situation and believed that the IEP did indeed address all of the student's needs and refused to consider a modification of the plan (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division (http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/06/henrico.va.rt.htm).

The parents filed suit against the Henrico County School Board in Virginia.

The plan was developed for the 2002-2003 school year for the student, RT.

The basis for the suit was RT's parent's belief that RT was being deprived of the federally promised free and appropriate education (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division (http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/06/henrico.va.rt.htm).

The purpose of the IDEA is "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division (http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/06/henrico.va.rt.htm)."

RT's parents first noticed their son was developmentally delayed while he was still an infant and had him evaluated for speech and language therapy which he began before he was two years old. A referral to the Chesapeake Center caused RT to be identified as a child with Autism with concurrent language delays. He also had disorders and delays with gestures, play and interaction skills with significant communication and oral motor problems.

RT began receiving homebound services provided by the school district in 2000 and in 2001 he entered the public school preschool with accommodations to ready him for kindergarten.

RT's mother did not believe he was progressing sufficiently and she moved to have him placed in an autism program being conducted at a particular school in the district where she believed his needs would be met (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division (http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/06/henrico.va.rt.htm).

At the same time RT's mother teamed up with an ABA expert and they designed a home ABA program that RT worked during the summer.

In 2002 RT was allowed to attend the Autism program his mother requested.

RT's parents believed that RT was also not progressing at that school so then asked the IEP team to support him moving to a specialty school for children with autism.

He was accepted there and was still doing the ABA program at home.

His mother became concerned that he still wasn't progressing and at that point wanted some changes to his IEP goals. The district felt the goals were appropriate however and refused to change them.

After observing their son in his school setting the parents filed a due process suit seeking reimbursement for private school to which they had immediately transferred him.

The suit claimed the board of education failed to provide a free and appropriate education.

The initial finding was in favor of the parents and the student returned to the private school and was reimbursed for the tuition however, the district appealed the decision.

During the second hearing each side presented five witnesses who testified to what they had seen and observed with regard to RT's needs (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division (http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/06/henrico.va.rt.htm).

After reviewing the testimony the court sided with the district and mandated that the district did not have to pay for RT's private education. The parents could either pay for it themselves or they could place RT back in public school where his IEP would be followed. The court believed that the district was in fact providing the student with a fair and appropriate education whether or not it adhered to the ABA method desired by the student's parents.

Case Two

In another case a federal court ruled that districts do not have to prove their programs are valid and working. It is instead the burden of parents to prove it is not if they want changes made for their children in special education.

The 6-2 decision, which settled a split in the federal courts, was a major blow to parents' advocacy organizations, which argued that most families are not financially able to bear the burden of persuasion when going up against a board of education or a school superintendent. School officials across the country similarly contended that their resources would be drained by having to meet each challenge with a showing of adequacy (Barbash, 2005)."

The court ruling explained that the burden likes with the party seeking relief and in the case of due process hearings it is parents usually in the position of seeking relief.

The ruling stemmed from a suit with regard to the Montgomery Alabama school district.

Jerry B. Weast, superintendent of the Montgomery County Public School System, called the court's decision "a victory for special education teachers in Montgomery County and across the nation who work hard everyday to provide the best possible education for students with disabilities. He added, "We defended this case for one simple reason -- we didn't want our teachers and staff spending more time in the courtroom instead of the classroom (Barbash, 2005)."

In the case in court the plaintiffs alleged the school systems have the resources needed to defend their programs and bear the burden of proof that their programs are adequately serving the needs of the students (Barbash, 2005).

The family brought the suit because the parents disagreed with some of the IEP goals and accommodations and the school district stood by its belief that it was an adequate IEP for the student in question.

The parents filed suit demanding that the school district provide evidence of the adequacy of the IEP program it was providing for that student.

The school answered the suit with the claim that it was not under any obligation to prove the program was adequate, that the parents bore the burden of proof that it was NOT.