Louisiana Act 943 is a special education law that changes who must prove their case in disputes between families and public schools over a student's special education program. (Legis Louisiana)
Summary
Currently, when parents challenge a school district's special education plan in a due process hearing, they often bear the burden of proving the plan is inappropriate.
This flips that burden. Instead, the local education agency (the school district or other public education agency) must prove that its current or proposed special education program or placement is appropriate for the student. It must do so by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning it is more likely than not that its position is correct). (Keeping Law Simple)
Due Process is not a lawsuit. No one wins. And too often, the ones who lose the most are the children.
What the Law Does
- Requires the school district—not the parents—to carry both:
- the burden of production (presenting evidence), and
- the burden of persuasion (convincing the hearing officer).
- Applies to special education due process hearings concerning whether a student's current or proposed educational program or placement is appropriate.
- Does not change who qualifies for special education or what services students are entitled to under federal law (IDEA). It changes the procedural rules used when disputes reach a formal hearing. (Keeping Law Simple)
PCVIS Board Member and CVI parent Kathryne Hart testified at the Louisiana Senate hearing. You can also read her written remarks delivered during the House hearing. Both are examples of how CVI advocates can use their experiences and expertise to advocate on a policy level.
Why Supporters Favor It
Supporters argue that:
- School districts have most of the relevant records, evaluations, and expert staff.
- Parents often face significant financial and legal hurdles in proving a district failed to provide an appropriate education.
- Shifting the burden makes the dispute process fairer for families. (Special Needs)
Shifting the burden of proof to the school district aligns responsibility with authority. Districts are the ones making decisions... Districts should be responsible for demonstrating those decisions are appropriate and compliant with the law.
Why Some Opponents Object
Opponents argue that:
- The change could lead to more due process hearings.
- School districts may incur higher legal and administrative costs.
- Resources could be diverted from classroom instruction to litigation and compliance. (Hoodline)
What We Can Learn
Whether or not legislation like Louisiana's is introduced in your state, its journey offers an important reminder: meaningful policy change often begins with one family's willingness to speak up.
Kathryne Hart's testimony was powerful not only because she shared her personal experience, but because she connected that experience to a broader question of fairness, accountability, and systems change. She showed lawmakers that the issue wasn't about one child or one school district—it was about whether the law places responsibility where it belongs.
As CVI advocates, we have opportunities to do the same. Every story shared with a legislator, every meeting with a policymaker, every coalition built with other disability advocates, and every public comment submitted can help shape the policies that determine whether students receive the education they deserve.
You don't have to be an attorney or a professional advocate to influence policy. Parents, educators, professionals, and self-advocates all bring expertise that lawmakers need to hear. Your lived experience can reveal gaps in the system that statistics alone never will.