Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Xavier C. Perry
Abstract
This paper explores the rights of students with disabilities as it pertains to their education, the
responsibilities that the institutions of learning have to provide for those with disabilities and the
guidelines and laws that are placed in order to help determine the necessity of specific services
deemed available and unavailable to students with disabilities. The text will examine four court
cases relevant to the subject matter. The court cases will outline the foundation from which laws,
rules and regulations have been established across the United States to ensure that the
educational needs of those with disabilities are being met while also providing the rights of the
Jonathon is a tenth grader with a multitude of disabilities requiring him to have constant care by
a specially qualified nurse. Jonathon is severely mentally disabled having a spastic quadriplegia
(a subset of spastic cerebral palsy that affects all four limbs) and a severe seizure disorder (a
neurological disorder more commonly known as “epilepsy”). The school he attends is principled
by Debbie Young, a veteran high school principle. Young worked as a special education teacher
and assistant principal in a liberal and progressive school district in the South. The parents of
Jonathon approach Young with regards to his necessity for continuous nursing care while at
school and Young denies their request based on the exceptional cost involved and also her view
that her specific institution isn’t the most suitable arrangement for Jonathon and his needs.
There are many similar cases to Jonathon’s that helped mold laws and guidelines that are the
foundation that determines what services related to the student’s disability may be provided by
the school and those that are the responsibility of the student’s responsible party (parents,
grandparents, guardians ect.). One of those cases is Stratham School v Beth and David P (p 154)
wherein the question of whether or not the school district is financially responsible for the
mapping of a student’s cochlear implant (not for the cost of the cochlear implant itself) and the
cost for transportation for both the student and parents to the specialist as the visits pertain to the
mapping and customization of the implant. The specialist provides the mapping of the implant
using a computer to determine the proper level of electrical current needed to stimulate
electrodes implanted in the ear. The courts determined that for the student to improve his ability
to communicate, the implant was necessary. Additionally, for the implant to work properly, the
mapping and travel expenses were also deemed a necessity. It’s clear in this case and similarly in
Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 4
the case of Jonathon, the tenth-grade spastic quadriplegia and epileptic that both students’
answers would result affirmatively to the Supreme Courts three part test established to determine
if a school district is responsible for providing a particular service to a student. Both students in
either case have a disability that requires special education under IDEA (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act). In both cases, it can also be concluded that there is a necessity for
the services in order for the students to prosper from his/her special education. And last, in both
cases, the requested service (s) doesn’t fall within a specific exclusion (example: physician’s
services and individually prescribed equipment). The Supreme Court customized this three part
test because of another comparable case, Irving Independent School District v Tatro. Irving
Independent School District vs Tatro (p 153) involved a student with Spina Bifida (a birth defect
where there is incomplete closing of the backbone and membranes around the spinal cord). This
student required Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC) services in order to attend special
education classes. It was not a part of the students individual education plan (IEP) for school
employees to administer the CIC services. After numerous attempts to appeal to the school in
adhering to CIC services, the parents of the student filed a law suit against the school district
claiming that the school was unwilling to provide CIC services even though they argued that CIC
is considered a “related service” under the Education for all Handicapped Children (s) Act. This
case established the above mention “three part test” by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
ruled that without the procedure (CIC) being accessible during the school day, the student would
be unable to attend classes and benefit from the special education instruction. The conclusion
made by the courts was that CIC was related to the effort to educate because it was a needed
service that allowed the student to remain in the classroom. In the scenario provided through
artifact 5, the tenth grade student Jonathon has a disability which requires special education
Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 5
under IDEA. For Jonathon to benefit from his special education, it is necessary he have a
specialized trained nurse. Without this type of nurse available at all times, he wouldn’t be able to
prosper from his special education. And finally, the services that Jonathon’s parents are
requesting don’t fall within a specific exclusion, such as physician’s services or individually
prescribed equipment.
There have also been similar cases wherein the ruling of the court stated that the school districts
weren’t responsible for providing certain services to students with disabilities even though the
students representatives (parents, grandparents, guardians ect) believed they were entitled. An
excellent example of this is the case of LT v Warwick School Committee (p 144-145) wherein
the school district offered a self-contained classroom that used a modified version of the
idea and instead wanted a technique called Discrete Trial Training. The court ruled that the
student was not entitled to a specific program preferred by a parent. It concluded that a school
must provide an IEP (Individual Education Plan) that is reasonably calculate’ to provide an
appropriate education as defined by federal and state law although IDEA doesn’t require a public
school to provide what is best for a special needs student. In this case, the courts ruled that the
student was entitled to appropriate education, but wasn’t entitled to the program that his parents
preferred. Although, the parents believed there suggested program to suit the needs of their child
better, under the laws of IDEA, the school wasn’t required to provide that level of education. In
the case of Jonathon, a mentally disabled tenth grader, a principle, Young, denies the services
requested by the parents. She, Young, concludes that the school is not the most appropriate
placement for the student. Young has previously taught special education and been the assistant
Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 6
principle at a liberal school giving her the experience to be found qualified to make such a
decision. In both situations the school is required to provide appropriate education. Young has
determined that based on the student’s needs, the school is not the appropriate place for Jonathon
to learn. Additionally, IDEA doesn’t require that schools furnish the most services and programs
In a final case I will present, the courts also found that the school wasn’t responsible for the
reimbursing of a residential placement center that a student was placed in by their parents. In the
case of Dale M. v Board of Education of Bradley Bourbonnais (p 144), a student whom had
become a severe disciplinary problem was placed in a therapeutic day school. After being jailed
and released, his parent then put him in a residential placement and later requested monetary
reimbursement of the cost of the residential placement alleging that residential placement was
the only appropriate measure. The school refused to reimburse the parent and as a result, the
parent sued the school. The court found that the parent wasn’t entitled to reimbursement from the
school because residential placement wasn’t educationally necessary. They upheld the school
districts offer of appropriate services. The outcome of this case was determined by whether the
services that the parent chose to utilize were educationally necessary. The courts believed that
the placement was a custodial only issue. Additionally, the school did attempt to provide
adequate services to meet the student’s educational needs. The school is required to provide an
IEP that is reasonable and provides an appropriate education per the federal and state law.
Though the circumstances in artifact 5 may seem very different from this case, the laws and
concepts are the same. Young, being a qualified individual made the reasonable observation that
her school is not the appropriate place for the student to receive care.
Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 7
Conclusion
It’s my belief that Principal Debbie Young’s decision in the case of mentally disabled tenth
grader, Jonathon is defensible. Young is a veteran member of the educational system. Her
experience included having been employed as a special education teacher and assistant principal
prior to obtaining her current position as a high school principal. By all means, she has the
experience and educational background to render a qualified decision regarding the matter of
Jonathon. I contend that based on the text court cases, the school nor school district would be
held responsible for that which the parents are requesting. I also believe the courts would rule in
favor of the school and school district based on IDEA, not requiring a public school to provide
what is best for a special need student. Although, it is required that an IEP outline to provide an
appropriate education as defined by state and federal laws. Young knew that her school was
unable to provide appropriate education deeming her school to not be the best choice for
Jonathon’s placement.
Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 8
References
Stollenwork, Debra A. & Rogers, Elisa, School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications
Stollenwork, Debra A. & Rogers, Elisa, School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida