546US1
Unit: $$U7
[09-04-08 12:12:39] PAGES PGT: OPIN
Cite as: 546 U. S. 49 (2005)
65
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
the IEP was appropriate. In reaching that result, we have sought to implement the intent of the statutory and regula tory schemes.”).1 Understandably, school districts striving to balance their budgets, if “[l]eft to [their] own devices,” will favor educa tional options that enable them to conserve resources. Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Ed., 392 F. 3d 840, 864–865 (CA6 2004). Saddled with a proof burden in administrative “due process” hearings, parents are likely to find a district proposed IEP “resistant to challenge.” 377 F. 3d, at 459 (Luttig, J., dissenting). Placing the burden on the district to show that its plan measures up to the statutorily man dated “free appropriate public education, ” 20 U. S. C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), will strengthen school officials’ resolve to choose a course genuinely tailored to the child’s individual needs.2 The Court acknowledges that “[a]ssigning the burden of persuasion to school districts might encourage schools to put more resources into preparing IEPs.” Ante, at 58. Curi ously, the Court next suggests that resources spent on devel oping IEPs rank as “administrative expenditures” not as ex penditures for “educational services.” Ante, at 59. Costs entailed in the preparation of suitable IEPs, however, are 1 The Court suggests that the IDEA’s stay-put provision, 20 U. S. C. § 1415( j), supports placement of the burden of persuasion on the parents. Ante, at 59–60. The stay-put provision, however, merely preserves the status quo. It would work to the advantage of the child and the parents when the school seeks to cut services offered under a previously estab lished IEP. True, Congress did not require that “a child be given the educational placement that a parent requested during a dispute.” Ibid. But neither did Congress require that the IEP advanced by the school district go into effect during the pendency of a dispute. 2 The Court observes that decisions placing “the entire burden of per suasion on the opposing party at the outset of a proceeding . . . are ex tremely rare.” Ante, at 57. In cases of this order, however, the persua sion burden is indivisible. It must be borne entirely by one side or the other: Either the school district must establish the adequacy of the IEP it has proposed or the parents must demonstrate the plan’s inadequacy.
