Maintain Minnesota’s Statute on Burden of Proof in Special Education Due Process Hearings Fact Sheet

Position
Minnesota’s dispute resolution process is working well. In 2003 this area of the statute was rewritten and all stake holders agreed that the burden of proof ought to continue to be on the school district in special education due process hearings. There is no need to change this law.

Background Information
Minnesota’s dispute resolution system appears to be working well. It includes conciliation, mediation, facilitated IEP’s and due process hearings. In FY 05, there were only 18 individuals who proceeded with a due process hearing out of about 114,000 students being served from birth to age 21. Additionally, there were only 126 requests for alternative dispute resolution processes, such as mediation, with a 90% agreement rate being achieved. Satisfaction rates with Minnesota’s Special Education Mediation Service were very high with 98% of the participants saying they would use the service again. The Supreme Court recently issued a decision on a special education due process case in Schaffer v Weast.

As it relates to burden of proof, the Court stated:

"Finally, respondents and several States urge us to decide that States may, if they wish, override the default rule and put the burden always on the school district. Several States have laws or regulations purporting to do so, at least under some circumstances. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §125A.091, subd. 16 (2004); Ala. Admin. Code Rule290*8*9*.08(8)(c)(6) (Supp. 2004); Alaska Admin. Code tit. 4, §52.550(e)(9) (2003); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 14, §3140 (1999). Because no such law or regulation exists in Maryland, we need not decide this issue today. JUSTICE BREYER contends that the allocation of the burden ought to be left entirely up to the States. But neither party made this argument before this Court or the courts below. We therefore decline to address it.

Reasons to Oppose Changing the Burden of Proof Requirements

• The burden of proof issue only applies in due process hearings. In Minnesota, there were only 18 due process hearings in FY 05. In very few of these cases would the evidence be so equal that burden of proof even becomes an issue.
• There is no need to change. The Supreme Court’s decision specifically declined to address situations where states require burden of proof to be placed on school districts (see above).
• Minnesota’s burden of proof requirements have been in effect since 1977. Since that time the rule provision has been amended and renumbered but no substantial changes have been deemed necessary.
• Minnesota most recently dealt with this issue when the complete dispute resolution process was rewritten and codified in 2003 and 2004. Proponents of shifting the burden of proof were members of the task force that re-wrote the dispute resolution process in 2003 and 2004. At that time they agreed that it should not change.
• School districts have greater access to legal expertise than parents do. Shifting the burden of proof will make the system more difficult for parents.
• Changing the burden of proof removes the incentive for districts to work proactively with parents to resolve any disputes.

This document was prepared using private funding.