Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sarah Kerschgens
A case was brought before the Supreme Court in 1993 after being appealed by
Florence School District regarding a claim that Florence School District had breached its duty
under IDEA to provide their daughter “with free appropriate public education”. The IEP that
Florence School District drew up, stated that Shannon was to make only 4 months progress in
reading and math during the course of 10th Grade As the parents were dissatisfied with this
IEP, they withdrew their daughter from their public school and placed her in a private school
specializing in educating children with disabilities. Shannon's parents claimed this school
provided their daughter with the education that is proper under IDEA and therefore they sued
the District for reimbursement of the costs for the private school.
In the case Florence School District v. Carter, the Supreme Courts ruled in favor of
Carter. They agreed that the school district had totally missed its mark with the IEP and that
the progress was totally inadequate. Although the private school did not fulfill all the
requirements under IDEA, they reevaluated Shannon's IEP quarterly instead of the mandatory
yearly, they supplied her with a lower teacher-student ratio and they had developed a plan that
allowed Shannon to receive passing marks and progress from grade to grade The courts also
found that in the 3 years that Shannon was at the private school her reading grades had
improved substantially. The courts found that the move from the public school to the private
school was substantiated and that Shannon was receiving the proper education under IDEA
This case was a Landmark Case as the courts ruled that even though Carter was in a
private school that was not listed under a special education school, and that the school did not
satisfy all the states standards of education, they were providing her with the appropriate
education under IDEA. This case was backed up by a previous ruling in School Comm. Of
Section 1401(a)(18) defines “free appropriate public education” as, special education and
(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without
charge,
(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State
involved, and
Florence School District was opposed to reimbursement as they claimed this would put
a burden on all School Districts financially if parents could just “withdraw” their children from
public schools and place them in private schools but the Supreme Court ruled that this
financial burden would only incur costs if the public schools did not meet the standards of
IDEA and not provide students with “appropriate free public education” in a public school
setting or place the child in a suitable private school setting of the States choice.
This case was important and as it was backed by the ruling in Burlington V. Mass
Education, it has helped parents when school boards fail to provide students with disabilities
LANDMARK COURT SPECIAL EDUCATION CASE
4
the right to find alternative schools that are appropriate to their child's individual needs. With
this court ruling IDEA has been amended to include Guidelines for the situation when parents
place their children in private schools without the consent of the public school boards.
LANDMARK COURT SPECIAL EDUCATION CASE
5
REFERENCES
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.carter.htm
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.burlington.htm