-
Florence County School District 4 v. Shannon Carter
Florence County Schools argued that placing financial responsibility on the school district to reimburse parents would leave an open door to any parent/guardian who were not satisfied with public schools and decided to place their child in private school. Shannon Carter's parents believed that their child wasn't receiving adequate and appropriate education from Florence County Schools. -
Florence County School District 4 v. Shannon Carter
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Respondent (Shannon Carter). If the public school does not provide student with adequate education, and the parents find a suitable private school they must be reimbursed for tuition. -
Florence County School District 4 v. Shannon Carter
Florence County School District 4 v. Shannon Carter is relevant to the needs of special needs students because it holds public schools accountable for the services that are provided. Students should receive the appropriate education, as outlined in their IEP. Wrights Law (n.d.). Florence County School District IV v. Shannon Carter. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.carter.htm -
Hartmann v. Loudon Couny Board of Education
Mark's Hartmann's parents did not approve his IEP which attempted to change his setting to a self contained AU (autistic) classroom. In addition to his disruptive behavior, Loudon County School District argued that Mark did not make significant progress in the regular education classroom setting. -
Hartmann v. Loudon County Board of Education
The ruling was in favor of the petitioner Mark Hartmann. The court determined that the school district did not take all of the necessary steps to ensure that Mark was successful in the regular education classroom. -
Hartmann v. Loudon County Board of Education
This case protects the rights of students who may display behaviors that are deemed disruptive or undesirable. A student can not be removed from a regular education classroom making every attempt to ensure the student's success in the regular education classroom setting. Wrights Law (n.d.). Wrights Law (n.d.). Hartmann v. Loudon County Board of Education. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cedar-Rapids-Community-School-District-v-Garret-F. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
Cedar Rapids Community School District did not feel they were required to provide the student (Garret F.) with a specialized nurse for one on one care. Garret F.'s family argued that the school district should assume financial responsibility for his nursing care when in school due to limited psychical ability -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
The court ruled in favor of the respondent Garret F. Per the courts ruling support services needed must be provided for students who need continuous and specialized care. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
This ruling provides students with the additional support needed to thrive and remain integrated in school. Many families are not financially able to provide their child with specialize care, therefore the district should ensure that all services needed are provided in order for the student to remain in school. Osborne, Allan (2014, Sep 23). Cedar Rapids Community School District v, Garret F. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cedar-Rapids-Community-School-District-v-Garret-F