Artifact #5 Appropriate Placement 1

Artifact # 5

Appropriate Placement

Matthew Van Roeyen

College of Southern Nevada

April 20, 2018

Artifact #5 Appropriate Placement 2

Regarding a student who may be severely disabled, it is the authorization to be in a

specific school that ultimately allows the student to be able to be educated by that specific

school. A principal would review cases regarding a student through the student’s ability to be

educated in a typical school environment, and would decide if the school environment would be

suitable for the student. In the case of Debbie Young, a seasoned high school principal, she

would use her knowledge of special education to determine the qualifications of a disabled

student. The student, Jonathan, was found to be profoundly mentally disabled, had spastic

quadriplegia, and had a seizure disorder. Jonathan had multiple disabilities requiring constant

care by a specially trained nurse. Debbie Young, upon reviewing the student’s qualifications for

being educated at her school, and upon noting the extraordinary expense, found that her school

would not be the most appropriate place for Jonathan.

The issue is that you cannot deny an education to a student based on their disability.

Students need to be able to learn in a classroom environment. For example, in the case of

“Timothy vs Rochester New Hampshire”, (Timothy vs Rochester New Hampshire sch dist 875 f

2d 954 1st cir 1989) the decision regarding a student with disabilities was upheld according to

the clarification of the law. It was decided that “the literal interpretation that P.L. 94-142

requires that all children with disabilities be provided with a free, appropriate, public education,

unconditionally and without exception.” (Timothy vs Rochester New Hampshire sch dist 875 f

2d 954 1st cir 1989) In this similar court case, “the three-judge appeals court overturned the

decision of a distric court judge, who had ruled that the local school distric was not oblicated to

educate a 13 year old boy with multiple and severe disabiliteis because he could not benefit from

special ed.” (Timothy vs Rochester New Hampshire sch dist 875 f 2d 954 1st cir 1989)
Artifact #5 Appropriate Placement 3

The student, Jonathan, did require the care of a specially trained nurse due to the nature

of his disabilities. In the case of “Cedar Rapids Community School Dist v Garret”, (Cedar

Rapids Community School Dist v Garret f 526 us 66 1999) it was stated that “a local school

distric must pay for one-on-one nursing care for a medically fragile student who required

continuous monitoring of his ventilator and other health-maintenance routines.” (Cedar Rapids

Community School Dist v Garret f 526 us 66 1999) This case emphasized the importance of

maintaining care towards students in special education. It went over how “schools must provide

any and all health services needed for students with disabilities to attend school as long as

performance of those services does not require a licensed physician.” (Cedar Rapids Community

School Dist v Garret f 526 us 66 1999) If Jonathan required the use of a nurse, then the school

should be able to afford the cost of that nurse regardless of how expensive it became.

However, the school in question may not have been the best placement for someone in

Jonathan’s position. In the court case of “Daniel ABRAHAMSON, etc., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v.

Corrine HERSHMAN, et al., etc., Defendants, Appellants.”, (Daniel ABRAHAMSON, etc.,

Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Corrine HERSHMAN, et al., etc., Defendants, Appellants. United States

Court of Appeals, First Circuit. 1983.) there was a decision made regarding a student who was

very similar to Jonathan. “The court ruled that residential placement in a private school was

necessary for a child with multiple disabilities who needed around the clock training and

required the school district to pay for the private placement.” (Daniel ABRAHAMSON, etc.,

Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Corrine HERSHMAN, et al., etc., Defendants, Appellants. United States

Court of Appeals, First Circuit. 1983.) The school would still have to pay for the placement, but

they would be able to place Jonathan in a school that was better for him.
Artifact #5 Appropriate Placement 4

Jonathan’s placement, however, does not depend on his intelligence. For example, in the

case of “Hobson v Hansen” (hobson v Hansen 269 f sup 401 ddc 1967) it was “declared that the

tracking sytem, in which children were placed into either general or special classes according to

their scores on intelligence tests, unconstitutional because it discriminated against African

American and poor children”. (hobson v Hansen 269 f sup 401 ddc 1967)

In conclusion, it would be fair for a principal to deny authorization to a school for a

student with severe disabilities as long as the principal was able to find an appropriate

environment for the student to achieve the same level of education.

Artifact #5 Appropriate Placement 5

References

Cedar Rapids Community School Dist v Garret f 526 us 66 1999

Timothy vs Rochester New Hampshire sch dist 875 f 2d 954 1st cir 1989
Daniel ABRAHAMSON, etc., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Corrine HERSHMAN, et al., etc.,
Defendants, Appellants. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. 1983.
hobson v hansen 269 f supp 401 ddc 1967