Posted on 11/14/2005 10:10:08 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that parents who demand better special education programs for their children have the burden of proof in the challenges.
Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the 6-2 court, said that when parents challenge a program they have the burden in an administrative hearing of showing that the program is insufficient. If schools bring a complaint, the burden rests with them, O'Connor wrote.
The ruling is a loss for a Maryland family that contested the special education program designed for their son with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The case required the court to interpret the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which does not specifically say whether parents or schools have the burden of proof in disputes. The law covers more than 6 million students.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
You know the ones I have referred to here and with whom I have consulted myself and worked with myself -over the NEA, a handful of teachers and some parents with a history of drugging their children (see those people may have an agenda with which I disagree).
I am sort of... well.. "conservative that way". I am sure you understand, I just really prefer to respect the research of conservative think tanks and business folks over union leaders.
Conservative sources are good, but I always thought that conservatives based their opinions on the evidence, and liberals based theirs on "feelings". I like evidence.
I am certain that I can find plenty of the NEA members and plenty of your fellow employees whom will side with you. Hands down the majority of people employed by the public school system will say there is no fraud in funding or diagnosing children with ADD( even tho we have some of them here admitting there is).
If you feel it is wiser to believe the NEA and in the conversations you have had with less than conservative sources, who work in the field in question- over what I have shown you from conservative sources with track records of running successful business and supporting conservative ideals- that is your choice.
However, I didn't say I believed the NEA, so please don't put words in my mouth.
I am glad to hear you acknowledge your own weakness.
It is a beginning!
You know, most of us here have read your "about me" page; and realise that your heart is often in the right place. But, you fail to back up your points with valid arguments.
We do not want to be cannibals! No one "dislikes" you, because we do not know you.
This poster is trying to help you. In the nicest of ways. You have a lot to offer, instead you resort to sophmoric rhetoric, which degrades any true debate--and ends up making you look silly.
Most of us are not interested in a "smack down"---which is what you seem to be most interested in.
You are just that bright.. are you? *lol*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.