Artifact 5

Page 1

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #5

Jessica Beasley
October 10, 2014
College of Southern Nevada

Artifact 5
Page 2
Debbie Young is a seasoned high school principal. She served as a
special education teacher in the past. And she was also an assistant
principal in a progressive, affluent school district in the South. She was
asked by parents of a severely disabled tenth-grade student to have their
son, Johnathan attend one of the schools in the district. Once Debbie Young
learned off all his disabilities she refused the parents request. Johnathan
would need constant care by a specially trained nurse. He was spastic
quadriplegia and a seizure disorder. This would cause an extraordinary
expense to the school. And not to mention that the school is not the most
appropriate placement for Johnathan.
Debbie Youngs decision is not well defensible. For example, in case
Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. (1999), a quadriplegic
student required continuous one on one nursing services. The parents
provided nursing services at school until the student hit the 5th grade. Then
the parents demanded that the school pay for it. After an administrative law
the judge ruled that the school district was required to provide the services
under the IDEA as a related service. If this school can pay for the
continuous care of a quadriplegic student, then Debbie young can find a
school for Johnathan and take care of the continuous care under the IDEA
related services.

For example, in case Stratham School v. Beth and David P. (2003),

there was a question whether the district should have to pay for the mapping
of a students cochlear implant and for the transportation of the student and
his parents to the specialty doing the mapping and customization of the
implant. The court fund that is was necessary to improve the students
Artifact 5
Page 3
ability to communicate. So if Johnathan is able to attend school in this
district then it would benefit him. He will gain an education.
On the other hand, Debbie Young made the right decision by not letting
the severely disabled student attend school in the district. In case, LT v.
Warwick School Committee (2004) the district offered a self-contained
classroom that used a modified version of educational techniques. But the
parents rejected this offer. The First Circuit Court of Appeals found that an
autistic student was not entitled to the particular program preferred by the
parent, stating IDEAD does not require a public school to provide what is
best for a special needs child, only that it provide an IEP that is reasonably
calculate to provide an appropriate education as define in federal and state
law.
Another example as to why Debbie made the right decision is in case
Dale M. v. Board of Educ. of Bradley Bourbonnais High School (2001). A
student there had a serious disciplinary problem and was placed in

therapeutic school. The student was basically jailed and then released. His
parent ended up seeking reimbursement alleging that only a residential
placement was appropriate. But the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found
that residential placement was not educationally necessary, only custodial.
So having to take care of this disabled student is not educational, it is
custodial.
Despite Youngs decision, she is believed to not have made a
defensible decision. You cannot let someone be refused an education based
on their disabilities. The IEP should state
Artifact 5

Page

4
that the student needs a nurse under related services. Johnathan should
be given a right to education just like anyone else, despite his disabilities.

Artifact 4
Page 5
References
Dale M. v. Board of Educ. of Bradley Bourbonnais High School 237 F.3d 813
(7th Cir. 2001)
LT v. Warwick School Committee 361 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2004)
School District v. Garrett F. 526 U.S. 66 (1999)
Stratham School v. Beth and David P. 2003 WL 260728 (D. N.H. 2003)