Edu 210 CSN

Artifact #5
Education of Students with Disabilities

Aubrey LaMond
Artifact #5 Education of students with disabilities Edu 210 CSN
Aubrey LaMond

Jonathan is a tenth grader that requires special care due to his severe disabilities to be

able to attend school. His has profound mental disability, spastic quadriplegia, and seizure

disorder which means he needs constant care by a specially trained nurse. Jonathans parents want

him to go to the best school possible, and they talk to Debbie Young an assistant principal of a

progressive, affluent school district in the South to have him attend. Debbie Young has the

background, as she was a teacher in special education previously. Debbie refused the parents

request, because of the extreme care and expense that would be required for Jonathan, as well as

she did not think that this school is the best place for him.

The law does not say that all students are entitled to a placement in their neighborhood

school or school of their choosing. (Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). Pg.155) In

the case of Beth B. v. Van Clay, a student who had a cognitive ability ranging from a 1-year old

to a 6-year old. Beth could not walk unassisted and communicated primarily by eye gaze. She

was in a regular classroom from 1994-1997, when the school district created an IEP that placed

her in a self-contained classroom in a ELS. Beths current school did not have an ELS classroom,

and would require her to move schools. Her parents disagreed and wanted her to stay in the

general education classrooms. (caselaw.findlaw.com) The court agreed with the school district

stating, the school officials decision about how to best educate Beth is based on expertise that

we cannot match. (Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). Pg.124)

In Jonathans case, the school that his parents want him to go to may not have the

programs available so he can benefit in special education or in the general education classroom.

Young, who has experience in the special education setting, also stated that she did not think her

school was the best place for him. With any placement of a student with an IEP, the school is

responsible for using their expertise opinions as to what is the best setting to educate the student.
1
Artifact #5 Education of students with disabilities Edu 210 CSN
Aubrey LaMond

If Youngs school is not going to benefit Jonathan, then it doesnt matter what services he needs

or the cost. Youngs decision is defensible as she informing the parents that her school cannot

match the options that are available at other schools for her son.

To be appropriate the IEP must be reasonable calculated to confer educational benefits for

the students. (Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). Pg.163) Jonathans parents do

not have the right to choose any school of their liking to enroll their child. If another school is

better to serve the students needs than what the parents want, then the child should attend that

school. The whole reason the IEP is put in place is to make sure the student is placed where they

can meet their educational goals. A similar case, McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools, Emma a

student with down syndrome IEP required to be placed in a categorical classroom instead of a

resource classroom. The school that Emma was closest to did not have the specific classroom

that would help her meet her special educational needs. Instead the IEP recommended her to go

to a school that was 7.3 miles away. (caselaw.findlaw.com)

The parents disagreed with the determination, and filed suit. The courts agreed that the

best placement for Emma was in a categorical classroom in the school farther away.

(caselaw.findlaw.com) Parents also have to look at what school will best serve their child no

matter the prestigious of the school they would like. Young decision is defensible due that she is

considering the best option for the student. She already knows what her school has to offer for

student with disabilities, and she is aware her school will not benefit Jonathan who has these

specific severe disabilities.

The Supreme Court devised a three-part test to determine whether the school district is

required to provide a particular service to a student as a related service. (Underwood, J., &

Webb, L. D. (2006). Pg.124) First the student must have a disability that requires special

2
Artifact #5 Education of students with disabilities Edu 210 CSN
Aubrey LaMond

education under IDEA, second the service must be necessary for the child to benefit from her

special education, and finally the service must not fall within a specific exclusion as physicians

services or individually prescribed equipment. (Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006).

Pg.124) Based on this information he meets the above requirements. Johnathan does have a

disability that requires special education, he does require a service that is necessary for him to

benefit in special education, and his service does not require physician service or individually

prescribed equipment.

In Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, a student with spina bifida required a

Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC) services to attend special education classes. The IEP did

not make any provision for this service. The parents sued the school district and won, the court

agreed that the CIC was a related service that the school was required to provide this under

IDEA. The court stated that this service was needed for the student to stay in the classroom, and

benefit from special education. (usedulaw.com) Just like Tatro, Jonathan requires this related

service to be able to stay in the classroom and to benefit from special education, and the court

would rule against the school. Young has no right to decide that a student with disabilities cannot

attend her school based on expense.

One of the frequent contention between parents and the school is whether a particular

service is actually necessary for the student to receive educational benefits. (Underwood, J.,

& Webb, L. D. (2006). Pg.154) Jonathans parents are not asking the school to provide

more that what is required for him to gain access to the special education program at this school.

He needs a specially trained nurse to care for him throughout the school day for him to be

successful in his education career no matter his disabilities. This is a similar case to Cedar Rapids

Independent School District v. Garrett F., where a quadriplegic student who ventilator dependent

3
Artifact #5 Education of students with disabilities Edu 210 CSN
Aubrey LaMond

also required the constant care of a nurse. The parents requested for the school to pay for this

service so he can stay in the special education program. The courts ruled that under IDEA the

nurse was a related service, and ruled in favor of the parents. (wrightslaw.com) I argue that

Jonathans care would also be considered related services; therefore, Youngs decision is not

defensible and the school district would be responsible for providing this service.

The question to ask when placing a student with an IEP is not what is the prettiest school,

the closest school to home, or what school the parents would like their student to go to. The

question that needs to be asked, is what school is going to be the best placement for the student.

What school has the programs that will benefit the student and meet their individual educational

goals. In the case of Beth B. v. Van Clay, the school she was at could not meet her needs, and the

IEP was written to include the program best suited which happened to be at a different school.

Also in McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools the school that could meet her special educational

needs was at a school that was further away. In both cases the parents wanted their child to attend

a school that could not meet the needs of these children.

Just like the above cases Jonathan has severe disabilities that require specific care. It is

not Debbie Youngs fault that the school she is the assistant principal, may not have these

programs he needs. It is not required to meet the needs of the parents when placing a student. It

is required to make sure the student is placed in a classroom that can meet the development of

the appropriate goals and objectives/benchmarks of the student. With this information Youngs

decision is defensible and the courts would rule in favor of the school.

References

4
Artifact #5 Education of students with disabilities Edu 210 CSN
Aubrey LaMond

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (n.d.). Retrieved December 06, 2016,
from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_Cedar_Rapids_SupCt_990303.htm

FindLaw's United States Sixth Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved December 06,
2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1253429.html

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro. (n.d.). Retrieved December 06, 2016, from
http://usedulaw.com/350-irving-independent-school-district-v-tatro.html