Document: 510 U.S. 7 FLORENCE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR et al.v.CARTER, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER NEXT FRIEND, CARTER No. 91-1523. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 6, 1993. Decided November 9, After respondent Shannon Carter, a student in petitioner public school district, was classified as learning disabled, officials met with her parents to formulate an individualized education program (IEP), required under the Individuals Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act), 20 U. S. C. § 1400 seq. Shannon's requested hearing challenge proposed IEP's appropriateness. In meantime, enrolled Trident Academy, private specializing educating children disabilities. state and local educational authorities concluded that IEP adequate, filed this suit, claiming district had breached its duty IDEA provide "free appropriate education," 1401(a)(18), seeking reimbursement for tuition other costs incurred at Trident. The District ruled parents' favor, holding violated IDEA, received "appropriate" substantial compliance IDEA's substantive requirements, even though did not comply all Act's procedures. affirming, Appeals rejected district's argument is never proper when choose approved by State does requirements 1401(a)(18). Held: court may order who unilaterally withdraw their child from provides inappropriate put otherwise but meet 1401(a)(18)'s requirements. Pp. 12-16. (a) School Comm. Burlington v. Department Ed. Mass., 471 359, 369-370, recognized right disagree place school, held grant equitable authority empowers retroactively reimburse if ultimately determines placement, rather than IEP, Act. P. 12. (b) Trident's failure definition education" bar reimbursement, because section's cannot be read applying parental placements. 1401(a)(18) "provided . supervision direction," designed "a representative agency" "establish[ed]," "revise[d]," "review[ed]" agency, will context placement. Therefore them placements would effectively eliminate unilateral withdrawal Burlington, defeat purpose ensuring disabilities receive both free. Similarly, 1401(a)(18)(B) requirement standards agency apply It inconsistent goals forbid educate simply lacks stamp approval same system failed child's needs first place. Parents' select state-approved favor unapproved option itself reimbursement. 12-15. (c) allowing such puts unreasonable burden on financially strapped rejected. Reimbursement claims need worry conform mandate either give free setting, setting State's choice. Moreover, change placement during pendency review proceedings are entitled only federal concludes Finally, total fashioning discretionary relief cost unreasonable. 15-16. 950 F. 2d 156, affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT. Donald B. Ayer argued cause petitioners. With him briefs were Beth Heifetz Bruce E. Davis. Peter W. D. Wright respondent. brief Nancy McCormick. Amy L. Wax States amicus curiae urging affirmance. Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney Schiffer, Deputy Wallace, William Kanter, John Schnitker.* JUSTICE O'CONNOR 1 84 Stat. 175, amended, (1988 ed. Supp. IV), requires disabled This case presents question whether We hold therefore affirm judgment Appeals. 2 * Respondent Carter 1985, while ninth grade operated Florence County Four. (IEP) Shannon, IDEA. §§ (20), 1414(a)(5) IV). provided stay regular classes except three periods instruction per week, established specific reading mathematics four months' progress entire year. dissatisfied, appropriateness IEP. See 1415(b)(2). Both officer claim adequate. placed began September 1985 graduated spring 1988. 3 suit July 1986, bench trial, favor. achievement "were wholly inadequate" satisfy App. Pet. Cert. 27a. further "[a]lthough [Trident Academy] procedures outlined [IDEA]," excellent requirements" statute. Id., 37a. found "evaluated quarterly, yearly mandated [IDEA], it low teacher-student ratios, developed plan which allowed passing marks grade." Ibid. also credited findings own expert, determined made "significant progress" comprehension risen levels years school. 29a. costs. 4 Fourth Circuit 156 (1991). agreed terms According Appeals, neither text nor legislative history imposes "requirement parent-placement cases." 162. To contrary, concluded, state-approval applies officials. Accordingly, "when has defaulted obligations Act, `proper Act' `reasonably calculated enable benefits.'" 163, quoting Board Hendrick Hudson Central Dist., Westchester Cty. Rowley, 458 176, 207 (1982). 5 below conflicted Tucker Bay Shore Union Free 873 563, 568 (1989), Second unless meets agency. granted certiorari, 507 907 (1993), resolve conflict among Courts II 6 369 (1985), we "to expenditures special Act." Congress intended promise normally provision schools chosen jointly parents. cases where cooperation fails, however, "parents faced choice: go along detriment turns out pay what they consider placement." 370. For willing able make latter choice, "it empty victory have tell several later these could reimbursed officials." Because result contrary guarantee "Congress meant include retroactive available remedy case." As comes us, two issues settled: (1) (2) although narrow barred education."* not, 8 Section 1401(a)(18)(A) expense, direction." 1401(a)(18)(D) must agency," 1401(a)(20) ed., 1414(a)(5). These do sense case, cases, rejection very reason decision necessarily been over objection, "public Burlington. ensure supra, 373. provisions circumstances statutory purpose. 9 Nor believe school's standards. deficiencies, according employed least faculty members certified develop IEP's. noted, requirements—including 1401(a) (18)(B)—do Indeed, emphasis somewhat ironic. hardly seems consistent place." 2d, 164. Circuit's theory parent obtain [the State's] list private" schools. Tucker, (internal quotation omitted). known 10 Furthermore, absence essential our holding, note position no way knowing time South Carolina keeps publicly schools, instead approves case-by-case basis. fact, previously Trident, see 28a, blanket State. Carolina's needed before know approved. unlikely S., 372. III 11 authorities. argues requiring want meaningful allow control costs; dissatisfied any matter how expensive be. 12 There doubt imposed significant financial districts participate Yet avoid reimbursing can one things: mandate, about claims. 13 who, like Shannon's, "unilaterally proceedings, without consent officials, so risk." 373-374. They 14 once holds authorized "grant appropriate." 1415(e)(2). Under provision, "equitable considerations relevant relief," 374, enjoys "broad discretion" doing, id., 369. factors, including reasonable level should required. Total 15 16 So ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Arizona al. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Maryland, Andrew H. Baida Joann Goedert, Attorneys General, respective jurisdictions follows: Grant Woods Arizona, Michael Bowers Georgia, Richard Ieyoub Louisiana, Carpenter Maine, Mazurek Montana, Robert Del Tufo New Jersey, Tom Udall Mexico, Easley North Carolina, Heidi Heitkamp Dakota, Theodore R. Kulongoski Oregon, T. Travis Medlock Mark Barnett Charles Burson Tennessee, Paul Van Dam Utah, Stephen Rosenthal Virginia, Meyer Wyoming; National League Cities Ruda; Boards Association August Steinhilber, Thomas A. Gwendolyn Gregory. amici affirmance Head Injury Foundation, Inc., Craig Denmead Kevin M. Maloney; Learning Disability America Partin Reed Martin; Alliance Mentally Ill Steven Ney Penn. defines "special related services that— "(A) direction, charge, "(B) "(C) preschool, elementary, secondary involved, "(D) conformity ."

Category: 1