Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter

Decision Date09 November 1993
Docket NumberNo. 91-1523.,91-1523.
PartiesFLORENCE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR et al. <I>v.</I> CARTER, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, CARTER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

After respondent Shannon Carter, a student in petitioner public school district, was classified as learning disabled, school officials met with her parents to formulate an individualized education program (IEP), as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act), 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. Shannon's parents requested a hearing to challenge the proposed IEP's appropriateness. In the meantime, Shannon's parents enrolled her in Trident Academy, a private school specializing in educating children with disabilities. After the state and local educational authorities concluded that the IEP was adequate, Shannon's parents filed this suit, claiming that the school district had breached its duty under IDEA to provide Shannon with a "free appropriate public education," § 1401(a)(18), and seeking reimbursement for tuition and other costs incurred at Trident. The District Court ruled in the parents' favor, holding that the proposed IEP violated IDEA, and that the education Shannon received at Trident was "appropriate" and in substantial compliance with IDEA's substantive requirements, even though the school did not comply with all of the Act's procedures. In affirming, the Court of Appeals rejected the school district's argument that reimbursement is never proper when the parents choose a private school that is not approved by the State or that does not comply with all of the requirements of § 1401(a)(18).

Held: A court may order reimbursement for parents who unilaterally withdraw their child from a public school that provides an inappropriate education under IDEA and put the child in a private school that provides an education that is otherwise proper under IDEA, but does not meet all of § 1401(a)(18)'s requirements. Pp. 12-16.

(a) In School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass., 471 U. S. 359, 369-370, the Court recognized the right of parents who disagree with a proposed IEP to unilaterally withdraw their child from public school and place the child in private school, and held that IDEA's grant of equitable authority empowers a court to order school authorities retroactively to reimburse the parents if the court ultimately determines that the private placement, rather than the proposed IEP, is proper under the Act. P. 12.

(b) Trident's failure to meet § 1401(a)(18)'s definition of a "free appropriate public education" does not bar Shannon's parents from reimbursement, because the section's requirements cannot be read as applying to parental placements. The § 1401(a)(18) requirements that the education be "provided . . . under public supervision and direction," and that the IEP be designed by "a representative of the local educational agency" and "establish[ed]," "revise[d]," and "review[ed]" by the agency, will never be met in the context of a parental placement. Therefore to read them as applying to parental placements would effectively eliminate the right of unilateral withdrawal recognized in Burlington, and would defeat IDEA's purpose of ensuring that children with disabilities receive an education that is both appropriate and free. Similarly, the § 1401(a)(18)(B) requirement that the school meet the standards of the state educational agency does not apply to private parental placements. It would be inconsistent with the Act's goals to forbid parents to educate their child at a school that provides an appropriate education simply because that school lacks the stamp of approval of the same public school system that failed to meet the child's needs in the first place. Parents' failure to select a state-approved program in favor of an unapproved option does not itself bar reimbursement. Pp. 12-15.

(c) The school district's argument that allowing reimbursement for parents such as Shannon's puts an unreasonable burden on financially strapped local educational authorities is rejected. Reimbursement claims need not worry school officials who conform to IDEA's mandate to either give the child a free appropriate public education in a public setting, or place the child in an appropriate private setting of the State's choice. Moreover, parents who unilaterally change their child's placement during the pendency of IDEA review proceedings are entitled to reimbursement only if a federal court concludes both that the public placement violated IDEA and that the private placement was proper under the Act. Finally, total reimbursement will not be appropriate if a court fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable. Pp. 15-16.

950 F. 2d 156, affirmed.

O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

Donald B. Ayer argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Beth Heifetz and Bruce E. Davis.

Peter W. D. Wright argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Nancy C. McCormick.

Amy L. Wax argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, William Kanter, and John P. Schnitker.*

JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. IV), requires States to provide disabled children with a "free appropriate public education," § 1401(a)(18). This case presents the question whether a court may order reimbursement for parents who unilaterally withdraw their child from a public school that provides an inappropriate education under IDEA and put the child in a private school that provides an education that is otherwise proper under IDEA, but does not meet all the requirements of § 1401(a)(18). We hold that the court may order such reimbursement, and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

Respondent Shannon Carter was classified as learning disabled in 1985, while a ninth grade student in a school operated by petitioner Florence County School District Four. School officials met with Shannon's parents to formulate an individualized education program (IEP) for Shannon, as required under IDEA. 20 U. S. C. §§ 1401(a)(18) and (20), 1414(a)(5) (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). The IEP provided that Shannon would stay in regular classes except for three periods of individualized instruction per week, and established specific goals in reading and mathematics of four months' progress for the entire school year. Shannon's parents were dissatisfied, and requested a hearing to challenge the appropriateness of the IEP. See § 1415(b)(2). Both the local educational officer and the state educational agency hearing officer rejected Shannon's parents' claim and concluded that the IEP was adequate. In the meantime, Shannon's parents had placed her in Trident Academy, a private school specializing in educating children with disabilities. Shannon began at Trident in September 1985 and graduated in the spring of 1988.

Shannon's parents filed this suit in July 1986, claiming that the school district had breached its duty under IDEA to provide Shannon with a "free appropriate public education," § 1401(a)(18), and seeking reimbursement for tuition and other costs incurred at Trident. After a bench trial, the District Court ruled in the parents' favor. The court held that the school district's proposed educational program and the achievement goals of the IEP "were wholly inadequate" and failed to satisfy the requirements of the Act. App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a. The court further held that "[a]lthough [Trident Academy] did not comply with all of the procedures outlined in [IDEA]," the school "provided Shannon an excellent education in substantial compliance with all the substantive requirements" of the statute. Id., at 37a. The court found that Trident "evaluated Shannon quarterly, not yearly as mandated in [IDEA], it provided Shannon with low teacher-student ratios, and it developed a plan which allowed Shannon to receive passing marks and progress from grade to grade." Ibid. The court also credited the findings of its own expert, who determined that Shannon had made "significant progress" at Trident and that her reading comprehension had risen three grade levels in her three years at the school. Id., at 29a. The District Court concluded that Shannon's education was "appropriate" under IDEA, and that Shannon's parents were entitled to reimbursement of tuition and other costs. Id., at 37a.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 950 F. 2d 156 (1991). The court agreed that the IEP proposed by the school district was inappropriate under IDEA. It also rejected the school district's argument that reimbursement is never proper when the parents choose a private school that is not approved by the State or that does not comply with all the terms of IDEA. According to the Court of Appeals, neither the text of the Act nor its legislative history imposes a "requirement that the private school be approved by the state in parent-placement reimbursement cases." Id., at 162. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals concluded, IDEA's state-approval requirement applies only when a child is placed in a private school by public school officials. Accordingly, "when a public school system has defaulted on its obligations under the Act, a private school placement is `proper under the Act' if the education provided by the private school is `reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.'" Id., at 163, quoting Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
829 cases
  • D.B v. Bedford County Sch. Bd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • April 23, 2010
    ...private day school.” 20. The Supreme Court of the United States observed, in Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter By and Through Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 12, 114 S.Ct. 361, 126 L.Ed.2d 284 (1993), that IDEA's grant of equitable authority empowers a court “to order school authorities to re......
  • Genn v. New Haven Bd. of Educ., Case No. 3:12–cv–00704 (CSH)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • November 30, 2016
    ...under the IDEA is a familiar one:When parents unilaterally enroll their child in a private school, we apply the three-part Burlington–Carter test to determine whether they should be reimbursed. Under the test, we look at ‘(1) whether the school district's proposed plan will provide the chil......
  • S.F. v. McKinney Indep. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • March 6, 2012
    ...2005 (1985) (interpretting same statutory language in prior version of IDEA). See also Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter By and Through Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 16, 114 S. Ct. 361, 366 (1993) ("courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors......
  • N.G. v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 31, 2008
    ...that such placement, rather than a proposed IEP, is proper under the Act.'" Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter by and Through Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 11, 114 S.Ct. 361, 126 L.Ed.2d 284 (1993) (quoting School Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 369, 105 S.Ct. 199......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Cut and run? Tuition reimbursement and the 1997 IDEA amendments.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 75 No. 4, September 2010
    • September 22, 2010
    ...1.html. (6.) Id. (7.) Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484 (2009); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); Sch. Comm. v. Dep't. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (8.) Forest Grove, 129 S. Ct. at 2492. (9.) Id. at 2490-91. (10.) Id. at 2496. (11.) Id. (1......
  • Reversing Reverse Mainstreaming.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 75 No. 3, March 2023
    • March 1, 2023
    ...parents must show that the private school placement is "proper under the Act." Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 12-15 (1993). This pursuit of tuition reimbursement is not unique to reverse mainstreaming cases. See Perry A Zirkel, Adjudicative Remedies for......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT