Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/278

 546US1

Unit: $$U7

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

Cite as: 546 U. S. 49 (2005)

67

Breyer, J., dissenting

about the educational resources available to their [child]” and the “sophisticat[ion]” to mount an effective case against a district-proposed IEP. Id., at 458 (Luttig, J., dissenting); cf. 20 U. S. C. § 1400(c)(7)–(10). See generally Department of Education, M. Wagner, C. Marder, J. Blackorby, & D. Car­ doso, The Children We Serve: The Demographic Characteris­ tics of Elementary and Middle School Students with Disabil­ ities and their Households (Sept. 2002) (prepared under contract by SRI International, Special Education Elemen­ tary Longitudinal Study), http://www.seels.net/designdocs/ SEELS_Children_We_Serve_ Report.pdf (as visited Nov. 8, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case ﬁle). In this setting, “the party with the ‘bigger guns’ also has better access to information, greater expertise, and an afﬁrmative obligation to provide the contested services.” 377 F. 3d, at 458 (Luttig, J., dissenting). Policy considerations, conven­ ience, and fairness, I think it plain, point in the same direc­ tion. Their collective weight warrants a rule requiring a school district, in “due process” hearings, to explain per­ suasively why its proposed IEP satisﬁes the IDEA’s stand­ ards. Ibid. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Fourth Circuit. Justice Breyer, dissenting. As the majority points out, the Individuals with Disabili­ ties Education Act (Act), 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq., requires school districts to “identify and evaluate disabled chil­ dren,. . . develop an [Individualized Education Program] for each one. . ., and review every IEP at least once a year.” Ante, at 53. A parent dissatisﬁed with “any matter relating [1] to the identiﬁcation, evaluation, or educational placement of the child,” or [2] to the “provision of a free appropriate public education” of the child, has the opportunity “to re­ solve such disputes through a mediation process.” 20 U. S. C. §§ 1415(a), (b)(6)(A), (k) (2000 ed., Supp. V). The Act further provides the parent with “an opportunity for an im­