Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/265

 546US1

54

Unit: $$U7

[09-04-08 12:12:39] PAGES PGT: OPIN

SCHAFFER v. WEAST Opinion of the Court

it appears that most hearing requests come from parents rather than schools. Brief for Petitioners 7. Although state authorities have limited discretion to de­ termine who conducts the hearings, § 1415(f)(1), and respon­ sibility generally for establishing fair hearing procedures, § 1415(a), Congress has chosen to legislate the central com­ ponents of due process hearings. It has imposed minimal pleading standards, requiring parties to ﬁle complaints set­ ting forth “a description of the nature of the problem,” § 1415(b)(7)(B)(ii), and “a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available. . . at the time,” § 1415(b)(7)(B)(iii). At the hearing, all parties may be ac­ companied by counsel, and may “present evidence and con­ front, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of wit­ nesses. ” §§ 1415(h)(1)–(2). Af ter the hearing, any aggrieved party may bring a civil action in state or federal court. § 1415(i)(2). Prevailing parents may also recover at­ torney’s fees. § 1415(i)(3)(B). Congress has never explic­ itly stated, however, which party should bear the burden of proof at IDEA hearings. B This case concerns the educational services that were due, under IDEA, to petitioner Brian Schaffer. Brian suffers from learning disabilities and speech-language impairments. From prekindergarten through seventh grade he attended a private school and struggled academically. In 1997, school ofﬁcials informed Brian’s mother that he needed a school that could better accommodate his needs. Brian’s parents con­ tacted respondent Montgomery County Public Schools Sys­ tem (MCPS) seeking a placement for him for the following school year. MCPS evaluated Brian and convened an IEP team. The committee generated an initial IEP offering Brian a place in either of two MCPS middle schools. Brian’s parents were not satisﬁed with the arrangement, believing that Brian