Law Analysis Part II 1
Law Analysis Part II
Mickey Woodrum
Liberty University
Law Analysis 2
Introduction
There has been a long history of making changes to protection individuals with
disabilities. The following court cases that are discussed show that parents are not always backed
up when it comes to their child’s Individual Education Plans. Although parents have a right to
due process does not mean that it automatically chances or makes a difference. It may take a
while and a lot of effort for there to be any change of effect for the world of special education.
Landmark Court Case #1: Schaffer v. Weast
Background
In 1997 Jocelyn and Martin Schaffer was told that their son Brian needed to go to a
school that better accommodated his needs. The Schaffer’s then had a special education
evaluation done through the Montgomery County Public Schools. The Montgomery County
Public School came up with an Individual Education plan that included 15.3 hours of special
education inclusion classes and 45 minutes of speech-language intervention each week (Boswell,
2005). The disagreed with the Individual Education Plan saying that the plan was less intense
than the previous school in which Brian was failing in. The Schaffer’s initiated the due process
hearing challenging the IEP and seeking compensation for Brain’s subsequent private education.
Rulings
That parents have the burden of proof when they challenge an Individual Education Plan
(IEP) in due process hearings (Boswell, 2005). This ruling still recognizes that parents play a big
role in the Individual Education Plan and it only reiterated the IDEA procedures that allow
parents access to evidence of their child’s Individual Education Plan. The parents are also not left
Law Analysis 3
without experts to match the government (Boswell, 2005). The case is also making hope for less
lawsuits for school districts. This case also shows that if parents and school districts can get on
the same page with an Individual Education Program no matter who has the burden of proof
litigation would be prevented.
Implications to Special Education
The implications to this case are that the burden of proof is decided at the state level. In
most states the burden of proof is placed on the school districts. This case may cause the school
districts to change their policies and place the burden of proof on to the parties filing the
complaint. This means that it is not a federal rule and that parents need to pay close attention to
what the school districts policies are.
Landmark Court Case #2: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District
Background
Endrew F. was diagnosed with autism at two and attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder
at age three. Drew attended Douglas County schools from preschool until fourth grade. The
school provided an Individual Education Plan that addressed his cognitive functioning, language
and reading skills, and his social and adaptive skills. The services had minimum effects on
Drew’s academic and behavior challenges. His parents then placed him in a special education
school for fifth grade and filed for due process for tuition reimbursement and denial of FAPE by
the school district. The court first ruled in favor the school district because they had provided
Drew with special education services and an Individual Education Plan.
The parents appealed to the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit (). They believed
that parts of the Rowley FAPE test were violated. The parents said that the school failed to report
Law Analysis 4
Implications to Special Education
The implications of this ruling are that it is individually based. It has to do with each
student and their Individual Education Plans. It is based on the Individual Education Plan team
members and the efforts they put into their work for each student. The best way to ensure that the
Endrew education benefit standard is met for each student is with four effective practices. They
Drew’s progress and assess his behavior by using the functional behavior assessment. The
parents did participate in serval meeting and obtained reports. They stated that the reports did not
provide actual information that obtained to Drew’s progress but instead were just general
statements. The school also did not address Drew’s behavior problems appropriately. Once again,
the court ruled in favor of the school district saying that the Drew had made some improvement
and that the allegations from the students were not found to be so.
Drew’s parents then filed another petition in 2016 for Writ of Certiorari. The parents
claimed that IDEA is to provide a meaningful education and just a trivial one. The courts heard the
arguments in 2017 and ruled to vacate the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.
Rulings
That the schools have an obligation to “enable a child to make progress appropriate in the
light of the child’s circumstances” (Prince, Yell, & Katsiyannis, 2017). The court rejected the Tenth
Circuit that a student with
disabilities Individual Education Plan is to provide more than the minimum benefits. This ruling
says that students deserve more than just the minimum. That they should be given as much help
as needed to give them the best chances at being a well-rounded adult.
Law Analysis 5
include addressing all of the students needs, making sure there are measurable annual goals in
academic and functional areas, targeting the students special education and related services to
improve the students performance, and to be sure to monitor the students’ progress and report the
progress to the students parents.
Conclusion
In conclusion the court seems to side more with the school districts than over the parents.
It seems to me that it takes a lot of effort and consistency to ensure that their child’s education is
protected. The Endrew ruling changed a lot for special education students. It helps ensure
students get the quality of their education they need and reminds Individual Education Plan team
members it matters as well. The Schaffer court case allows parents to be the burden of proof in
some school districts. This protects the school districts in some cases. It helps prevent lawsuits
and also helps make the school districts and parents work together to make the best Individual
Education Plan for the students.
Law Analysis 6
References
Boswell, S., (2005). U.S. Supreme Court Upholds School Districts in Special Education Case.
The ASHA Leader, 10(17), 2-10.
Prince, A.M.T., Yell, M.L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2017). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School
District (2017): The U.S. Supreme Court and Special Education. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 53(5), 321-324.
