On Special Education

Board Buzz, the blog of the National School Board Association, brings news of an upcoming audio conference titled "Special Education: What's On the Horizon?"

The conference is scheduled for 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. EST April 16, and includes some well-known special education law experts, including Houston-based school attorney Christopher Borreca and Allan Osborne, a principal and former president of the Education Law Association. Regular registration is $140, but some discounts are offered and for the price, you can gather as many people as you want around a speaker phone to hear the presentation.

Here's my prediction: Response to intervention is going to generate due-process hearings, and maybe even lawsuits, unless districts do a good job explaining the educational method to parents. There's already grumbling among some parents that the RTI process takes too long to get their children the specific extra help they need. However, I admit that I'm not going out on a limb: The Washington Post (registration required) and the Wall Street Journal have already written about this topic.

Posted by Christina Samuels at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

An article I wrote recently about New Jersey shifting the burden of proof in individualized education program hearings is generating a lot of thoughtful reader comments.

The issue: When a school creates an IEP for a student and the provisions of the plan are disputed, who has to prove their case? Does the school have to prove that it is doing the right thing, or do the parents have to prove that the school's plan is wrong? In 2005, the Supreme Court decided in the case Schaffer v. Weast that, in the absence of any other state law, the "party seeking relief" should always have the burden of proof. Practically speaking, the ruling means that it's the parents' job to prove that the school is wrong, because parents are most likely to be the party seeking relief.

New Jersey, however, recently passed a law stating that no matter who is complaining about the IEP, it's the school's job to prove that its plan is appropriate for the child.

You can read more of the details in the article. Feel free to join the lengthy conversation that is already taking place in the comments appended to the bottom of the story, or to talk about the topic here.

Posted by Christina Samuels at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)