Running head: SPECIAL EDUCATION

Special Education
Meghan Arellano
EDU 210 Spring College of Southern Nevada

SPECIAL EDUCATION

2
Summary

An experienced high school principal, Debbie Young, was put into hot water when she
made the decision to turn away a student with quadriplegia, seizure disorder and is severely
mentally disabled. Her reasoning was that the young man, Jonathan, needed constant care by a
specialized nurse which the school just did not have the funds for. The public school in which
Young worked for was not the proper place for Jonathan and should be taken care of elsewhere.
Since she used to be the special education teacher, had some knowledge of these cases, knowing
when to take on a disabled student and how much it would cost the school to give the best care.
In this essay, we will explore her decision and find out if she was wrong to turn him away.
Reasons Defendant Was Right
The defendant argued that the school did not have the money to pay for a specialized
nurse that Jonathan needed in order to keep up with his classes. In the case of United School
District v. Holland (1992), a then eleven year old girl who had an IQ of 44, parents sued the
school for not letting their daughter be enrolled in regular education classrooms rather than stay
in the special education classes. When the school said no, the parents then enrolled her into a
kindergarten class at a private school, as well as keep her in the special education classes in the
public school. The courts found that this situation fit best for the student because the parents had
found an alternative way to help their child keep up with the classes at almost no extra cost to the
school. In the case of Debbie Young and Jonathan, there is no other alternative for the student.
The parents expected the school to pay for the specialized nurse and the constant care.
Reasons Defendant Was Wrong
There is a big reason why Debbie Young was in the wrong of this case. In the matter of
Cedar Rapids v. Garrett (1998), the courts ruled in favor or the plaintiff. Garrett F. was a student

SPECIAL EDUCATION

at Cedar Rapids that needed a ventilator at all times and was also in a wheelchair and when his
school refused to receive financial aid to help him, his parents sued the school. The courts ruled
in favor of the parents because of the law, IDEA (Individual with Disabilities Education Act).
The law requires the schools to take in any and all students with disabilities no matter how
severe and help them achieve academic success.
The same goes for the case of Timothy v. Rochester (1989). Like Jonathan, Timothy W.
had seizure disorders and spastic quadriplegia and was also incredibly handicapped mentally.
When the school refused to pay for his care, the parents sued the school. The courts ruled in their
favor stating that the school district of the state provide a free and appropriate public education
for all educationally handicapped children (Rochester, 1989). Both IDEA and FAPE (Free
Appropriate Public Education) worked in favor of this case. FAPE has to be provided for
children with disabilities between the ages of three and twenty one after LRE (Least Restrictive
Environment) requirements are reached. Jonathan is still of high school age and therefore
qualifies for FAPE and for IDEA.
Conclusion
In the end, the cons outweigh the pros in this situation. Debbie Young was in the wrong to
turn away Jonathan because of the precedent cases. IDEA and FAPE should have been taken
place and covered the cost of expenses for the student. Regardless of how handicapped he was,
Jonathan has the right to a public education and the school must provide him the care he needs. If
this were to go to court, Jonathan and his parents would win their case and the school would
have to supply the specialized care so that he can go to school and keep up with his classes.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

References
Cedar Rapids Comm. Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. and Charlene F.., No. 96-1793 (Rehnquist Court
March 3, 1999).
Sacramento City School Dist. v. Rachel H.,, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. January 24, 1994).
Timothy W. v. Rochester, N.H., School Dist., NO. 88-1847. (United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit. May 31, 1989).