Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/275

 546US1

64

Unit: $$U7

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

SCHAFFER v. WEAST Ginsburg, J., dissenting

and 343 F. Supp. 279 (ED Pa. 1972). Under typical civil rights and social welfare legislation, the complaining party must allege and prove discrimination or qualiﬁcation for statutory beneﬁts. See, e. g., St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502, 511 (1993) (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq.); Director, Ofﬁce of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U. S. 267, 270 (1994) (Black Lung Beneﬁts Act, 30 U. S. C. § 901 et seq.). The IDEA is atypical in this respect: It casts an afﬁrmative, beneﬁciary-speciﬁc obligation on providers of public education. School districts are charged with respon­ sibility to offer to each disabled child an individualized edu­ cation program (IEP) suitable to the child’s special needs. 20 U. S. C. §§ 1400(d)(1), 1412(a)(4), 1414(d). The proponent of the IEP, it seems to me, is properly called upon to demon­ strate its adequacy. Familiar with the full range of education facilities in the area, and informed by “ their experiences with other, similarly-disabled children,” 377 F. 3d, at 458 (Luttig, J., dis­ senting), “the school district is. . . in a far better position to demonstrate that it has fulﬁlled [its statutory] obligation than the disabled student’s parents are in to show that the school district has failed to do so,” id., at 457. Accord Oberti v. Board of Ed. of Borough of Clementon School Dist., 995 F. 2d 1204, 1219 (CA3 1993) (“In practical terms, the school has an advantage when a dispute arises under the Act: the school has better access to relevant information, greater con­ trol over the potentially more persuasive witnesses (those who have been directly involved with the child’s education), and greater overall educational expertise than the par­ ents.”); Lascari v. Board of Ed. of Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School Dist., 116 N. J. 30, 45–46, 560 A. 2d 1180, 1188–1189 (1989) (in view of the school district’s “better access to relevant information,” parent’s obligation “should be merely to place in issue the appropriateness of the IEP. The school board should then bear the burden of proving that