THE U. S. SUPREME COURT FLORENCE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR V. SHANNON CARTER Decision: November 9, 1993 HISTORY In 1983, Florence County School District Four evaluated and misdiagnosed fifteen year old Shannon Carter as lazy, unmotivated and a slow learner and told her parents to make her work harder. Her parents pressured her to the point that she became severely depressed and suicidal. In 1985, the inter- vention of Linda Summer, a licensed clinical social worker versed in the field of learning disabilities, changed Shannon's life. Ms. Summer suspected that Shannon had a learning disability and an attention deficit disorder. An extensive battery of evaluations were performed which resulted in Florence County School District Four admitting that Shannon was indeed learning disabled and had an attention deficit disorder. In 1983, District Four had used an uncertified evaluator and had failed to follow the proper procedures for evaluating children suspected of having a learning disability. Shannon had almost taken her life. In 1985, Shannon was many years behind her peer group academically and was functionally illiterate. To rectify the problem and remediate Shannon, District Four proposed placing Shannon into an itinerant special education program three hours a week. The parents' experts insisted that Shannon needed a self-contained learning disabled classroom. The parents requested a self- contained class. District Four did not have self-contained LD classrooms for children Shannon's age. District Four continued to propose the itinerant program which would provide Shannon with approximately one-half year of gain after a year of education, thus ensuring that Shannon would continue to fall further and further behind her peer group, despite her average to above average intelligence. Florence County refused to consider setting up a self- contained program within its own jurisdiction. District Four also refused to consider placing Shannon into neighboring School District I, or other nearby special educational placements. In May, 1985, the parents were told to "take it or leave it" and the line had been drawn in the sand. Thus, the legal portion of this case began when Shannon Carter's parents requested a due process hearing seeking more than three hours a week of special education services for their learning disabled daughter who also had an attention deficit disorder. The special education due process hearing was held on August 20, 1985. The Hearing Officer ruled that three hours a week and only one half a year of gain was appropriate. The Carters could not agree with a program that would insure that their daughter would fall further and further behind. Reluctantly, her parents sent her away from home in order to obtain an appropriate education for her. In September, 1985 the Carters placed Shannon into Trident Academy. (Note: Three years later, while the litigation was still pending, Shannon graduated and, as one witness testified, she had progressed from being functionally illiterate to reading at the twelfth grade level.) In the Fall of 1985, the Reviewing Officer upheld the Hearing Officer. The Carters filed suit in the U. S. District Court in Florence, South Carolina. The case was dismissed on a statute of limitation defense, but was later reinstated as a result of another Fourth Circuit decision. Eventually, the matter eventually was tried and Florence County School District Four continued to assert that falling further and further behind with a three hour a week special education program was appropriate for Shannon. This Court ruled in favor of the Carters and directed that they be reimbursed for the costs of Shannon's education at Trident Academy. Florence County School District Four appealed to the Fourth Circuit asserting that Trident Academy was not on the state's list of approved special education schools and had unqualified staff. Florence County School District Four relied heavily upon an earlier Fourth Circuit decision and a Second Circuit decision as a part of that appeal. The Fourth Circuit, with retired U. S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell sitting, affirmed the decision of District Court Judge Houck and took the Second Circuit to task for its misplaced reliance upon an earlier Fourth Circuit case. The opinion, on its face, established a clear split among Circuits and Florence County School District Four filed a Petition for Certiorari with The U. S. Supreme Court. When Florence County School District Four filed its petition requesting certiorari, they retained the services of one of the largest and most prestigious Washington, D.C. law firms. Their Counsel, Donald B. Ayer has argued numerous cases before the U. S. Supreme Court. Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) briefs were filed supporting Florence County District Four's position by the following seventeen states: Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Briefs supporting District Four were also filed by a number of other large powerful organizations including The National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Council of State Governments, National Association of Counties, International City/County Management Association, National Governors' Association, National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, National School Boards Association, and The National Association of State Boards of Education. Amicus briefs on behalf of Shannon were filed by the United States Department of Justice/Solicitor General's Office of the United States and the following groups: The National Head Injury Foundation, Inc., National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law (formerly the Mental Health Law Project), National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, Maryland Disability Law Center, Advocacy, Inc. and the Learning Disability Association of America. With seventeen states in opposition, the case had become far larger than simply Shannon Carter, School District Four and Trident Academy. After the Joint Appendix and numerous amicus briefs were filed, preparation began for oral argument. As arguing counsel, this attorney read and outlined on his computer each brief filed by the parties and amicus and participated in grueling mock moot supreme court oral arguments. Oral argument was held on October 6, l993. The Supreme Court issued a swift decision thirty-four days later that has been considered a landmark case in the annals of special education law. School Boards had asserted that Carter would result in financial catastrophe. Justice O'Connor gave short shrift to those arguments and stated that one had to look to the legislative mandate of the special education law. In other words, school systems are to provide the children with an appropriate special education instead of drawing lines in the sand and adopting a take it or leave it attitude. As the result of Carter, school systems are revising and taking another look at the continuum of special education alternatives that they are required to offer to handicapped children. In the Second Circuit, when parents placed children into appropriate private special education programs that were not on the states "approved" list and if the public school had defaulted in providing an appropriate education, the parents could not be reimbursed. In the Second Circuit, the private education was appropriate, but it was not free. In the Fourth Circuit, pursuant to Carter, given similar facts, the private school education was appropriate and free. The U. S. Supreme Court has affirmed this Court's ruling that a special education program should be appropriate and also be free. The journey of the Carter case from a special education due process hearing in Timmonsville, South Carolina to The U. S. Supreme Court has been costly to the Carters and to the many people who have expended time and energy on this case on behalf of the parents and all other handicapped children. An adverse decision would have been a tremendous setback to the education of all handicapped children. The essence of this case has ensured children are entitled to an appropriate special education that is also free! Peter W. D. Wright Counsel for Shannon Carter Courthouse Commons 4104 E. Parham Road Richmond, Virginia 23228 (Note: a more extensive analysis, history of the case and direction of future special education litigation is on the ADD forum. Pete Wright was diagnosed as having LD and ADD problems in the early 1950's and was remediated by Diana King and Roger Saunders and Helene Dubrow of Orton-Gillingham fame.) __________________________________________________________________________ This article has been downloaded from the ADD Forum on CompuServe, and may be distributed freely as long as the contents of the file are unchanged. Because the CompuServe ADD Forum is new, we are frequently asked how to join CompuServe and get on the forum. Call 1-800-524-3388 and ask for rep #464. Outside the US/Canada call +1-614-457-0802.