Special Education

Amber Garrett

Garrett 1

Amber Garrett
Education 210
Professor Warby
June 23, 2015

Special Education

Special Education is a critical part of the public education system. Over the last few
decades there has been many laws related to special education enacted and re-authorized. For
those who have to navigate the special education system it can be daunting and
overwhelming, but each step in the IEP process is essential in determining what obligations
the school is expected to meet to provide a free and appropriate education to each student
with special needs. This essay will argue contrasting points of view for a scenario which the
process of a school to determine eligibility for a special needs student is called into question
when the school determines their setting is not the appropriate one for the student. Debbie
Young is a seasoned high school principal. She served as a special education teacher and an
assistant principal. She is approached by the parents of a severely disabled tenth-grade
student to have their son, Jonathan, attend one of the schools in this district. Jonathan has
multiple disabilities requiring constant care by a specially trained nurse. He is profoundly
mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Young refuses the
parents request due to extraordinary expense and a view that the school is not the most
appropriate placement for Jonathan.

Garrett 2

In the case of Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garret F., the court ruled in
favor of the parents who requested that the school district provide the nursing services
needed for their quadriplegic son who was ventilator dependent. It was ruled that under
IDEA, the district was required to provide services on the grounds that the nursing services
were related services rather than excluded medical services. In our scenario, Jonathan is
also a quadriplegic who requires continuous one-on-one nursing services. According to the
precedent set in this case, it can surely be argued that the school district is obligated to meet
those same expectations with Jonathan.
According to Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, no otherwise individual with a disability
in the United Statesshall solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
person or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. In the scenario provided it could
be argued that Principal Youngs decision was discriminatory against Jonathan due to his
particular disabilities which she stated would be an extraordinary expense to the school. As
stated in the text, IDEA mandates schools provide students with all related services necessary
for the child to benefit from special education. These services include, orientation and
mobility services, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for
diagnostic and evaluation purposes only, as may be required to assist a child with a
disability to benefit from special education. Furthermore, under IDEA, Jonathan should
have had an IEP prepared through the school to determine what the best placement should
be, in order to meet the guidelines of the above law and provide a free and appropriate
education, which Jonathan was denied.

Garrett 3

Often times, the district is put in a position where although they are required under law to
provide a free and appropriate education, the resources they have are limited in ways that
means they cannot accommodate each student in the most convenient location for the student
and family. For example, in the case of McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools the Court of
Appeals found that a student could be offered a program away from the neighborhood school
if another school in the district, offered the program a student needed. In the scenario
presented, Principal Young clearly did not have the program that Jonathan would most
benefit from. In addition, due to the extraordinary cost, it would be a an extreme financial
burden on the school to provide the necessary services Jonathan would need for the
appropriate program and therefore the Principal had no choice but to decline his entrance
based on those facts.
Principal Young is expected to provide the least restrictive environment for Jonathan and
must give thoughtful consideration to all the options available to determine what the most
beneficial learning environment for him is. After completion of this process, Principal Young
determined based on Jonathans extraordinary needs; that the school environment was not the
best environment for Jonathan to learn. An example of when a similar decision was upheld
by the court was in Beth B. v. Clay. After a determination that the student had a cognitive
ability ranging from 1yr 6yrs old the district decided the typical classroom setting was
inferior to a self-contained classroom despite the parents objections. The court deferred to the
knowledge of the school saying, the school officials decision about how to best educate
Beth is based on expertise that we cannot match. It is thus a reasonable argument that in
this scenario Principal made the best decision for the welfare and learning of Jonathan.

Garrett 4

As a society we have an obligation to protect the welfare of those individuals who need it
most, as is the case with children with special needs. In addition to being bound to comply by
the mandates of IDEA, Section 504, and ADA; us as a society has a moral obligation to
provide these exceptional learners with the environment that is the most supportive to their
learning styles so they may participate and benefit from public education just as typical
learners. Special education students should be provided with all the related services
necessary to enable them to learn in the least restrictive environment.

Garrett 5

References
1. Saker/Saker. Seventh Edition. School Law and Ethics. What are Your Legal Rights and
Responsibilities as a Teacher?
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0072877723/students_view0/chapter11/html
2. School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications/Julie Underwood, L.Dean Webb.
2006. Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.