Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a parent claims a school district’s special program is shortchanging their child, the burden of proof rests with the parents.

The school district, in other words, is innocent until proved guilty.

The ruling was a setback for parents and advocates for children with developmental disabilities.

“This puts parents at a disadvantage – not having the behind-the-scenes reinforcements that school districts have in the way of attorneys on retainer who deal with these kinds of cases all the time,” said Connie Zienkewicz, executive director at Families Together, a support organization for Kansas parents of children with disabilities.

“School districts are going to have many more arrows in their quiver than families are,” she said.

Most families, she said, do not have the time, money or energy needed to fight school district decisions on how to go about meeting their children’s special needs.

The court’s decision, she said, is sure to add to these families’ difficulties.

‘Anti-parent ruling’

Written by retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the 6-2 ruling also said that if a school district brought a complaint against a student’s parent or guardian, it had the burden of proof.

Diana Semmler, left, and Michael Robb work on a word exercise in their Related Academics special education class at Lawrence High School. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when parents claim a school district's special program is shortchanging their child, the burden of proof rests with the parents.

The case involved a Maryland family that objected to a school district’s Individual Education Plan for their middle school-age son, claiming he needed smaller classes and more intensive services. The boy had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

“We think it’s an anti-parent ruling,” said Rocky Nichols, executive director at the Disability Rights Center of Kansas.

“The school district controls the teachers, the staff, the facilities, the records and the money – yet we expect this little ol’ parent to take them all on,” he said. “It’s a terrible decision.”

Though the ruling is causing a stir nationally, Nichols said it’s unlikely to leave a mark on Kansas.

Different judicial districts, he explained, have interpreted the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act differently for many years. Kansas is in the 10th Judicial District with Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

“The Supreme Court’s decision basically affirms the Tenth Circuit’s interpretation,” Nichols said.

Nichols and others fear some school districts will use the ruling to cut back on special education spending, knowing parents would be hard-pressed to win in court.

“Keep in mind, the disputes we’re talking about are almost always predicated on school districts not wanting to spend money on services or programs that parents feel are needed,” said Barb Bishop, executive director at Arc of Kansas, a Lawrence-based organization that helps parents sort through the issues affecting their special-needs children.

Bishop noted that while Kansas school districts no longer resisted the notion that children with disabilities were entitled to an education, many districts dragged their heels when it came to providing mandated services aimed at helping students find jobs or live independently.

That’s not the case in Lawrence, she said.

“The situation here is infinitely better than it is in other places in Kansas,” she said. “And Kansas tends to be better than a lot of other states.”

Cooperation in Lawrence

Bruce Passman, Lawrence school district deputy superintendent whose duties include oversight of the district’s special education programs, said the district has had few run-ins with parents.

“We haven’t had to have a due process hearing in four or five years,” Passman said. “We have issues – we don’t have all the resources we need to do all the things we need to do – but we expect staff to work closely with parents to resolve issues, and for the most part they are successful in doing so.”

Parents, he said, play a key role in the district’s decision-making processes.

Denise Snodgrass, whose daughter, a second-grader at Wakarusa Valley School, has a disability, agreed and disagreed.

“I hear from parents who are happy and I hear from parents who are unhappy,” she said. “But our experience has been phenomenal. It’s been nothing but a positive experience for us.”

Sean J. Smith, an assistant professor of special education at Kansas University and the father of a 5-year-old son with Down syndrome, said he doesn’t expect the Supreme Court ruling to have much impact in Lawrence.

“If a district wanted to stonewall a parent, it could,” Smith said. “But I don’t see that happening here, not with the leadership we have here.”