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
