ARTIFACT 5 1

Artifact 5

Emily MacKinnon

EDU 214 – 2001

ARTIFACT 5 2

Debbie Young is a special education teacher-turned-principal, who held the position of

teacher and assistant principal in a "progressive, affluent school" for many years. Jonathan is a

disabled tenth-grader who needs constant care and assistance from a nurse; his disabilities

include mental disabilities, spastic quadriplegia, and a seizure disorder. Jonathan's parents put a

request in to have Young approve their son's attendance at a school in the district with a nurse,

but she refuses on the grounds of how expensive that would be for the district and her opinion

that public school may not be the best place for Jonathan.

I believe that the decision made in the case of Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson

Central School District v. Rowley, 1982, also supports the decision that Principal Young made.

In this case, Amy Rowley was a deaf student who could lipread and was given an FM hearing

aid by the school during her Kindergarten year. Amy's parents requested that an interpreter be

put into her classroom in addition to these things, but was denied. When they went to court, the

Supreme Court decided in favor of the school saying that they "did not have to provide the best

education, but one reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits" (Underwood). In the

case of Debbie Young, she was experienced in the area of special needs and had a fair

knowledge of what it require to accommodate a student like Jonathan, and she decided that it

would be too expensive of an endeavor to allow him to attend public school in the district. If

Principal Young decided that her school could not provide Jonathan with the provisions that he

needed, then the courts should side with her because of this.

Similarly, LT v. Warwick School Committee, 2004, came to a decision that aligned with

our previous case, in which the student was afforded a basic education, though not necessarily

what the parent wanted. The only difference I would point out, however, would be that in this

case the parents rejected the proffered IEP, and thus took the school to court. Also, that child was
ARTIFACT 5 3

evaluated by a specialist, where in the case of Young, it does not have any mention of a specialist

being consulted in regards to Jonathan's needs.

However, if the courts were to go by the decision made in Irving Independent School

District v. Tatro, 1984, then the result should be in favor of Jonathan and his parents. In this

case, Amber Tatro is an 8-year-old girl with the condition known as spina bifida. This means that

she has speech impairments and cannot control the use of her bladder, along with other things. A

special education plan was provided to Amber since she was three and a half years old, and her

parents requested that she be provided catheterization services (of which the required training

would take less than an hour) as part of her Specialized Plan. The school district did not grant

this request, but in this case the courts ruled that providing Amber with that service was part of

an appropriate education. Similarly, it could be decided that Jonathan's needs, while more in

depth, were to be included as part of an education appropriate to him. His parents can pay for the

nurse, the school may just need to adjust his plan to accommodate said nurse.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F., 1999, was a case dealing with a

student needing a nurse's assistance as well. Garrett was paralyzed from the neck down at 4 years

old, but retained full mental capacity throughout his schooling so far. His parents were able to

pay for the services of a nurse thanks to insurance and compensation, but they are no longer able

to do so and requested that the school pick up the payment of nursing services while Garrett is at

school. The courts agreed that this was a fair request, and ruled in favor of Garrett and his

parents, asking that the school provide Garrett with a nurse. Based on the results of this case, the

courts should also rule in favor of Jonathan and his parents.

My personal belief is that students with disabilities should be provided with the same

opportunities in education as other students. I do not think that our educational system in
ARTIFACT 5 4

America can provide that kind of education, however, so I think that in Young's case, giving

Jonathan the care and service he needs would be difficult. But I also think that the courts would

side in favor of Jonathan's parents, because it was not part of their request to have the district pay

for his nurse, thus making it an "appropriate education" though not the "best," as defined in

Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley.

ARTIFACT 5 5

References

CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GARRETT F. (1999, March 03).

Retrieved June 29, 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1793.ZO.html

FindLaw's United States First Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved June 29, 2017, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1241530.html

IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. TATRO. (2007, January 29). Retrieved

June 29, 2017, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.tatro.htm

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: concepts and applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.