Florence County School District IV v. Shannon Carter (510 U.S. 7 (1993))

The facts

• Shannon Carter was diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia via private testing.
• Her testing was corroborated by the school system.
• She also received treatment for depression from a licensed clinical social worker.

The facts

• Shannon entered high school functionally illiterate and reading on a 5th grade level.
• Florence County School District IV declared her eligible for special education.

the facts

• Florence County designed an IEP which provided less than 3 hours a week of assistance for Shannon in a SPED classroom that consisted of predominantly students with intellectual disabilities.
• The IEP's goal was that Shannon would make four months of progress towards improving her reading skills over the course of the year.
• The IEP did not allow Shannon to catch up with her peer group.

the facts

• Shannon's parents requested an IEP which would provide the intense instruction necessary to catch Shannon's reading skills up to high school level.
• Florence County refused to alter the IEP.

Shannon's parents withdrew her from public school and enrolled her in a private school specializing in dyslexia and language-learning disabilities.

The Carters then sued to recover private school tuition because the IEP was not providing a "free and appropriate public education" (FAPE)

Summary of previous case law

• Prior to Florence, school districts needed to either provide a FAPE or an education at a private school that was state approved.
• Previous case law allowed for unilateral parental withdrawal, at the parents' financial risk, provided the school was on the state's list and met all IDEA requirements.

administrative hearing outcome

• The local and state education agencies ruled against the Carters.

U.S. District court outcome

• Judge Houck appointed an expert to review the test data on Shannon.
• Houck ruled that the IEP was "wholly inadequate" and that the private school had provided an appropriate education.
• Houck ordered that the Carters be reimbursed for the private school tuition and reasonable expenses.

Court of appeals for the 4th circuit outcome

• Florence County argued that the private school was not state-approved.
• The court held that the school not being state-approved was not a bar to the parents being reimbursed or to the school being an appropriate choice to provide an appropriate education.
• However, this created a circuit split with the 2nd Circuit.

Supreme Court Ruling

• The Supreme Court ruled that the legal requirements do not apply to parental placements except that the placement must be educationally appropriate.
• They also ruled that courts may grant reimbursement after a unilateral parental placement when courts rule that the public placement/IEP was inappropriate AND that the private placement is appropriate.

Supreme court ruling

• Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that courts must consider several factors in granting reimbursement and that full reimbursement may not be appropriate if the private tuition cost is exorbitant.

educational impact

• Parents now have an additional bargaining chip/tool in the IEP process as they have more freedom in selecting a private placement that will provide an appropriate education for their child if the school district will not.
• School districts also have an additional tool because full reimbursement is not guaranteed for extremely expensive schools.

additional impacts

• Expensive private schools for some children may affect the ability of school districts to offer services to other children given that school districts often also have less money overall.

BonuS!

• On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court made another ruling on this same topic in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District

• Drawing on Florence and the line of cases before it, the Supreme Court ruled:

"To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances"

The bottom line

• School districts need to create IEPs that move children further than bare minimal progress. IEPS must be "appropriately ambitious" for the child.
• Parents have the right to seek out a more ambitious program and if the courts agree that it is more appropriate than the IEP being offered, they can be reimbursed for private education.