Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Artifact #4
Special Education
Michael Granado
CSN
ARTIFACT #4 2
Abstract
Debbie Young, is a high school principal who has been doing the job for a while. She taught
special education and acted as an assistant principal in a progressive high school located in the
south. The parents of a severely disabled tenth-grade student, Jonathan, has multiple disabilities
requiring and needing the care of a trained nurse that can assist Jonathan with his disability. His
disabilities include spastic quadriplegia, has seizures and is severely mentally disabled. Ms.
Young denies the parents request for her school, stating that due to the extreme expense the
school would have to go through and the type of Jonathans disabilities school is not the most
Ms. Young, is certified as a special education teacher. Without knowing all the
particulars of this case, we can argue that her decision could be upheld. Per the individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), there are specific check marks that need to be accomplished
to ensure that the child has the best opportunity to learn. Even if that child has a disability. If
Jonathan, the child who is disabled, took all the appropriate steps within the IDEA concept, he
would have an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP would be designed to provide
the child with educational benefits. Within the IEP would be a screening and evaluation to
determine the severity of the disabilities. Since we do not have this information available to us, I
will assume that with Ms. Youngs expertise and status as principal these steps would have been
taken.
Which brings us to the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Per IDEA the LRE would
be at home or hospital placement due to his disability and how it pertains to the ability for the
student to learn and effect those around him on a day to day basis. This means that even though
Jonathan has the opportunity to be educated with non-disabled peers to the greatest extent that
would be appropriate in conjunction with his disability. And in this case, due to the extent of
Jonathans disability the best situation would be for him to be at a full-time placement in a
residential facility or at home with his nurse. While still getting his special education under the
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Which states that all students with disabilities from
Furthering Ms. Youngs correct decision, we can look at Cedar Rapids v Garret (1997).
In this case Garret was a student who was involved in an accident and was left a quadriplegic and
needing a ventilator. The school would not pay for a nurse being present during his school day
ARTIFACT #4 4
due to their belief that his disability was a medical service rather than a supportive service.
The court ruled in favor of Garret stating that the school nurse was able to perform the needs of
the student and therefore was classified as a supportive service and would have to be covered
under the school per IDEA. Now in Jonathans case, the use of the term specialized nurse
comes into play. He is requiring the use of a specialized tailored nurse to assist him with his
needs. He would not have a specialized nurse if not prescribed by a medical professional which
in this case would be a licensed doctor. And per Cedar Rapids v Garret the nurse would have to
do more than diagnosis or evaluate and would therefore be classified as a medical service due to
his spastic quadriplegic and a seizure disorder. This is not including the vast liability the school
would have to undertake, which is where I believe Ms. Young has further cause to say no.
Ms. Youngs decision to exclude Jonathan from school due to his disability is
the range and severity of his disability. If he has an IEP and is still entitled to FAPE. As we look
into Timothy v Rochester (1989), Timothy was a special needs student suffering from complex
developmental disabilities, spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, seizure disorder and cortical
blindness. To include severe mental disability. Much like Jonathan. The ruling was based on
Timothy having been treated with therapy and having responses to such therapy the court ruled
in favor of Timothy. Stating that the childs ability to benefit from the special education is not a
consideration in whether to provide services. Thus, creating zero reject, a handicapped child,
regardless of the severity of his handicap or how much or little he will benefit from that
ARTIFACT #3 5
education is entitled to special education. When the parents of Jonathan came to Ms. Young,
regarding the education of their child, and per the zero reject rule Ms. Young has to ensure that
Jonathan gets his special education. Not only within the confines of zero reject but also in
conjunction with FAPE and IDEA. It does not matter how severe his disability is Jonathan has as
much right to attend special education classes within Ms. Youngs school. And per the laws and
Additionally, to the unjust decision of Ms. Young, we can see in Sacramento City
Unified School District v Holland (1994) that her choice was wrong. In the case Rachel Holland
was a mentally disabled child who spent time in a special education class during her school day.
Her parents felt that the school could increase the time she spent daily in a regular class to full
time. Meaning that she would be in her regular class amongst her peers. The parents argued that
she was not disruptive. Would be able to expand and develop her social skills and would have
increased educational benefits. The school argues that it would cost too much in order to
accommodate her needs. The court ruled in favor of Holland saying the school district had not
met the burden of proof that Rachel could not be educated in the general education classroom. In
terms of Jonathans case, the school has not done any such due process to determine if he could
benefit from the education that could be provided at Ms. Youngs school. By immediately stating
that Jonathan could not be educated or benefit from education is wrong. We can also argue that
the school did not fulfill their requirement(s) to fully ensure that Jonathan could not benefit
regular education.
ARTIFACT #4 6
In summary, due to not all of the particulars being disclosed and in fairness. I have to side
in favor of the student. In multiple instances, it is the responsibility and burden on the school to
provide an education. As well as a burden of proof that a student would benefit from other means
of education. Since we do not have the information on if an IEP was established, I have to
assume one was never created. Therefore, resulting in the education being given to Jonathan
under FAPE. Regardless of his disability, or the severity of same he is entitled to the same
education as any other student. Be as it normal or special education, it is the responsibility of the
References
Circuit, F. (1989). 875 F2d 954 Timothy v. Rochester New Hampshire school district.
hampshire-school-district
21, W. N. 09. FindLaws United States eighth circuit case and opinions. Retrieved
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/014/14.F3d.1398.92-15608.html