Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities

Jennifer Vazquez

April 21, 2018

Edu 210 1004

Artifact #5

Education of Students with Disabilities

Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities

Special education programs and services are available in many schools and are fast

growing. In a high school, a principal named Debbie Young has been presented with a situation

with the parents of a special education student. Mrs. Young has been a special education teacher

and an assistant principal in a progressive and affluent school district in the South. Mrs. Young

was approached by the parents of Jonathan a severely disabled tenth grader whose parents want

him to attend one of the schools in the district. He is profoundly mentally disabled, has spastic

quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Mrs. Young refuses his parent’s request because of the

huge expenses and the school is not an appropriate place for Jonathan.

Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), is a case presented in defense of Debbie Young’s

decision to refuse Jonathan’s parents’ request to attend a school in the district. In the case of the

Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), Amy Rowley was a deaf student attending regular classes.

She received a lot of different instruction from a tutor for the deaf, FM hearing aid, and a speech

therapist. Her parents wanted the school to also provide her with more services and filed a suit

against the school. In the end the Supreme Court ruled that the school did not have to provide the

best education, however they need to provide a reasonably calculated, under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) to confer educational benefits. This case would

help to show that Debbie Young’s actions are secure because this case provided the court with

guidance on what free appropriate public education means and what services and access are

provided to benefit the student. Mrs. Young has experience being a special education teacher and

she was also an assistant principal. She knows and understands the different accommodations

and related services needed for Jonathan. If the school in the district are not an appropriate place

for Jonathan, it is a correct decision to refuse him. In this case the court would rule in favor of
Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities

Debbie Young for refusing Jonathan because the school where his parents what him to attend is

not equipped to benefit him in his learning.

LT v. Warwick School Committee (2004), is another case presented in favor of Debbie

Young’s decision to refuse Jonathan’s parents’ request to attend a school in the district due to

extraordinary expense and not an appropriate place for Jonathan. In the case of LT v. Warwick

School Committee (2004), a family moved to Rhode Island with a child who suffers from autism.

They found out the educational services available for the child who was in the special needs

program since kindergarten. The school district offered the student a self-contained classroom

that was modified version for educational techniques, known as Treatment and Education of

Autistic and communication- Handicapped children. The parents rejected this offer because they

wanted different techniques and different services. The first Circuit of Appeals found that the

student was not entitled to the program that the parents wanted. It stated that IDEA does not

require the public school to provide what is best for the special needs student, however, it must

provide an individualized education program (IEP) that is reasonably calculated to provide an

appropriate education. This case would be helpful to show that Debbie Young’s actions were

right. She has knowledge of the different services and techniques needed for a student like

Jonathan and she knows that the school in the district is not the best place for him it would be

like the court ruling, that the public schools do not have to provide the best education but what is

reasonable. If the school cannot provide all that the parents want for Jonathan to attend this

school, it would not be beneficial for Jonathan to attend.

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984), is a case presented to argue that

Debbie Young’s decision to refuse Jonathan’s parents’ request to have him attend a school in the

district was wrong. In the case of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984), a student
Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities

with spina bifida suffers from orthopedic and speech impairments and a neurogenic bladder,

which prevents her from emptying her bladder voluntarily. She is required to have a clean

intermittent catheterization (CIC) services to attend class. Under her individualized education

program, there were no provisions for the school personnel to do the CIC services. Her parents

filed a suit against the school district. They stated that the CIC was a related service that school

should provide. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that without the procedure being available at

the school for the student she could not attend school. This is a case that would help to show that

Jonathan has a right to be at the school. There are services that must be provided for Jonathan to

attend school so he can benefit from special education instruction. IDEA requires an

individualized education program to be prepared for the student to receive special education

services. Under the IDEA it is emphasized that a student with a disability can be eligible for

related services and accommodations in the school. Jonathan’s parents must have the appropriate

paperwork to show that Jonathan needs these services for him attend school. The court would

rule in favor of the parents of Jonathan because the school has a responsibility to provide some

services that are reasonably calculated to be beneficial for Jonathan to attend school.

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. (1999), is a case presented to

argue that Debbie Young’s decision to refuse Jonathan to attend one of the schools in the district

is wrong. In the case of Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. (1999), Garrett

is a student who is quadriplegic and is ventilator dependent, therefore, he requires an individual

nearby to attend to certain physical needs while he is in school. His parents provided nursing

services at school until he entered fifth grade. They then requested that the school district to

provide the services. The school district declined. The parents filed a suit against the school

district. In the end, the court agreed with the parents. It was granted that nursing services were
Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities

not related services, instead excluded medical services. Meaning that the student needed these

services to attend school. This case would help Jonathan’s parents to prove that Mrs. Youngs

refusal of Jonathan was not right. Students with special needs have rights and protections under

IDEA, which means that there must be some services provided for them if its needed for them to

attend school. In their IEP, that is prepared for each student to receive special education services,

a school must provide these services to help the students attend school and receive an appropriate

education.

In conclusion, the decision for this case would be in favor of Jonathan and his parents. It

was not fair for Mrs. Young to refuse attendance to Jonathan at one of the schools in the district.

There was no checking to see under his IEP what services he required. Both Irving Independent

School District v. Tatro (1984) and Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F.

(1999), are cases where the court ruled that students or children with a disability under IDEA can

be eligible for related services. IDEA requires an individualized education program to be

prepared for the student to receive special education services and there are several types of

services that can be provided for a student that can be reasonably calculated to provide an

appropriate education. Jonathan does have a disability. He would mostly likely be eligible to

receive these services at the school that would be beneficial to his learning. Special education

students have rights and protection under IDEA to be able to attend school and receive

instruction with the appropriate accommodations.

Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities

References

Board of Education v. Rowley 458 U.S. 175 (1982). Retrieved April 19, 2018.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/176/

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. 526 U.S. 66 (1999). Retrieved April 19,

2018.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/526/66.html

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 468 U.S. 883 (1984). Retrieved April 18, 2018.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/468/883.html

LT v. Warwick School committee 361 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2004). Retrieved April 19, 2018.

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

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education.