Running head: Portfolio #6 1

Portfolio #6

Karen White v. School Board

Cassandra Rasmussen

College of Southern Nevada

Sun. May 12, 2019

 2

The right to free and appropriate public education is a right all Americans have.

However, determining what defines “appropriate” is a decision that must be determined in each

incidence. Debbie Young, an experienced high school principal refused to admit Jonathan to her

school. Jonathan’s disabilities require him to be in need of constant care. His disabilities include

being mentally disabled, having spastic quadriplegia, and having a seizure disorder. Young has

stated that her school is not adequate for Jonathan’s needs and would place an extraordinary

expense on the school. Jonathan’s parents, however, feel as though Jonathan’s rights are being

violated by not being granted admission, regardless of the cost and convenience of his

attendance. The determination of who is correct (Jonathan’s parents or the district, i.e. Ms.

Young) is now up to the courts to decide.

The first case presented in favor of the Jonathan and his parents is Cedar Rapids

Independent School District v Garret F. (1990). In this case, Garret F. required one-on-one care

due to his physical disabilities. Garret was wheelchair bound and used a ventilator to breathe.

Cedar Rapids Community School District felt it was not their responsibility to provide that type

of care to Garret. The district felt that the needs of Garret were “too costly and too involved to be

considered anything but medical in nature”. Unfortunately for the school board, the court

believed otherwise. The court found that the cost of the services that needed to be rendered were

irrelevant to the legality of it they needed to be provided. This meant the school must provide

Garret with the services he needed in order to attend school. This case relates to Jonathan’s case

because in both cases the school felt, because of the erroneous nature of the cost, the services

should not be an obligatory responsibility.

 3

The second case in favor of the parents is Irving independent School District v. Tatro

(1984). This case centers around a child named Amber Tatro. Amber was born with Spina

Bifida, and one of the ways this disease manifests itself is through bladder issues. As a result,

Amber required “Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC)” every few hours. However, the

school refused to perform this service, even though this procedure could be taught to an

individual in under an hour, and eventually Amber would be able to do herself. The district

argued that this service would constitute a “medical service” and not a “related service,” and

therefore was not part of their purview. However, the court disagreed with the district and found

that the services required by Amber Tatro were indeed “related services” and were required to be

provided by the district. This case was significant because, in order to render a judgement, the

court was required to define the difference between “related services” and “medical services.”

The court defined medical services as anything requiring a physician to be administered. Also, it

defined “related services” as anything that was medically necessary but could be provided by a

nurse, or layperson. This case relates to Jonathan’s because both children in question have

serious medical issues that require care in order to facilitate their attendance to school. While

Amber doesn’t require constant care like Jonathan, both students are unable to provide services

for themselves, and neither child requires a physician to have these services provided.

The first case presented in favor of the school district is Hendrick Hudson School District

v. Rowley (1982). In this case, Amy Rowley was a deaf child, who was provided an FM hearing

aid in order to complete her kindergarten year, thereby graduating to first grade. When the IEP

for Amy’s first grade year was created, the FM hearing aid was provided, but her parents insisted

on a sign language interpreter to help her succeed. The Rowleys’ argued that Amy would not be

able to live up to her full potential without a sign language interpreter. However, the school
 4

maintained that Amy was provided with a “free appropriate public education,” as outlined by the

letter of the law. To their argument, they provided test results, in which Amy did about average

without a sign language interpreter. The Rowleys’ countered, providing test results with a sign

language interpreter; those results were well above average. While the judge in this case ruled

that Amy was not living up to her full potential with the current education provided, the Supreme

Court reversed the decision, claiming that Amy was provided a “free appropriate public

education” as is outlined by the EAHCA. This relates back to Jonathan’s case because, while Ms.

Young has decided not to enroll Jonathan into her school, she is doing so because she believes

(at least partially) that her school cannot provide adequate or appropriate education for Jonathan.

And, according to the law, every child that qualifies under the EAHCA is required to be provided

with a “free appropriate public education,” and if a school cannot provide this, it is in the best

interest of the child to refuse entry into the school, so that the child can have a more appropriate

education elsewhere.

The second case presented in favor of the school district is JP Ex. Rel. Popson v. West

Clark Community School (2002). In this case, J. Popson (a child with autism and speech apraxia)

was not being provided with an education that properly met his needs, according to his parents.

According to the court, West Clark created a program to help provide J. Popson with a

reasonable and appropriate education. According to the law (which is what West Clark cited),

they are required to provide a student covered by the EAHCA with an education, not necessarily

the best education. In addition, West Clark followed all the guidelines and rules in order to create

an educational program that was compliant with the law. In fact, they even worked with the

parents to modify parts of the plan to their specific requests. While West Clark did not modify

the plans to comply with all of the Popsons’ requests, they reasonably complied with a
 5

significant number of requests. This case relates back to Jonathan’s case the same way that

Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley (1982) relates back to his case. In both cases, the

letter of the law is followed, and both students were provided with a “free appropriate public

education.” And again, if Ms. Young believes that her school cannot provide Jonathan with a

“free appropriate public education,” then she is under an obligation to not enroll the student into

her school, as it would not be appropriate for his educational journey. Additionally, she is a high

school principal who has years of experience working with people with disabilities (as she was a

special education teacher); she probably has a better understanding of the limits of her

educational programming.

My decision in this case is in favor of the student. While, legally, Ms. Young’s decision

is defensible, there is something to be said about the spirit of the law v. the letter of the law. In

both Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley (1982) and JP Ex. Rel. Popson v. West Clark

Community School (2002), while the letter of the law was covered, with just a few slight

changes, the spirit of the law could have been covered as well. While providing a “free

appropriate public education” is all well and good, as an educator, I would hope to be able to

help my students to live up to their full potential, and not just provide them with an absolute

baseline in order to meet some standard. That being said, I believe the court would rule in favor

of the student. Ms. Young stated that the reasons she is not allowing Jonathan admission into her

school is that it would be too expensive for the school and that the school is not an appropriate

placement for Jonathan. If Ms. Young had only stated that her school was not appropriate for

Jonathan, she might have had room for argument. However, her first reason was that it would be

too expensive. As is evidenced by the case Cedar Rapids Independent School District v Garret

F. (1990), cost should not be a reason that a child with disabilities is denied an appropriate
 6

education. Because of the ruling of this case, Ms. Young has lost a lot of her footing in her

argument, right from the outset. While this is the main reason I believe the court will side with

the student, as I have previously mentioned, the spirit of the law is just as important as the letter

of the law. And providing an education in which students are encouraged to live up their full

potential, except when it comes to following the EAHCA guidelines (which apply only to

students who are disabled in some way) could, in this day and age, be seen as discriminatory.
 7

References

Britannica, T. E. (2018, June 21). Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District

v. Rowley. Retrieved May 4, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Board-of-Education-

of-the-Hendrick-Hudson-Central-School-District-v-Rowley

Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. (n.d.). Retrieved May 4, 2019, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/96-1793

JP Ex Rel. Popson v. West Clark Community School, 230 F. Supp. 2d 910 (S.D. Ind. 2002). (n.d.).

Retrieved May 4, 2019, from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-

courts/FSupp2/230/910/2425897/

Umpstead, R. R. (2018, June 28). Irving Independent School District v. Tatro. Retrieved May 4,

2019, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Irving-Independent-School-District-v-Tatro

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

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.