Running head: RESTRICTIVE SETTINGS AND STUDENTS

Restrictive Settings and Students Rights

Bianca Yegutkin
College of Southern Nevada
 2
RESTRICTIVE SETTINGS AND STUDENTS RIGHTS

An experienced principal at a contemporary and successful southern school, Ms.

Debbie Young has years of experience as an educator, and before becoming a principal,

she also worked as a special education teacher and a vice principal. Parents of a male

sophomore, Jonathan, who has severe disabilities, place a request with Ms. Young. They

request that he be placed at her school that is within their district. Jonathan has multiple

disabilities which require individual support from a highly-trained nurse. Jonathan is

mentally disabled, and also suffers from spastic quadriplegia and seizures. Ms. Young

denies the parent’s request, citing burden of cost and the school not being an appropriate

environment as reasons for her denial. The question is this case is whether Ms. Young’s

denial of placement is justified.

Regarding Ms. Young’s denial of placement for Jonathan because of financial

cost, the courts have given precedent that a school is financially required to pay for

medical expenses and services unless those services need a physician (Webb 154). In

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F., a school did not want to pay for

medical services that were needed by a student with special needs (Cedar Rapids). The

school argued that the services were too high and costly, but the court disagreed. In a 7 to

2 decision the Supreme Court said that school is financially responsible for medical

services that are required for the student to attend classes unless required to be provided

by a physician (Cedar Rapids). Ms. Young cannot deny placement of Jonathan in a

school because of medical services that need a nurse. The school is responsible for

paying for these services (Webb 154).

 3
RESTRICTIVE SETTINGS AND STUDENTS RIGHTS
Regarding Ms. Young’s decision against placement because the school would not

be an appropriate setting for Jonathan; a recent decision by the Supreme Courts is

challenging what can be deemed as ‘appropriate’ when providing education to students

with disabilities (Supreme Court). In the recent case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County

School District, parents of a special needs child took the school district to court for costs

they incurred from sending their child to private school. They sent their son to a private

school because they believed that the public school was not meeting their son’s academic

needs. The school district refused to pay the cost of the private school tuition, and the

lower courts agreed with the school. Based on legal precedent that schools only need to

offer a ‘minimal’ education (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District).

In a landmark decision, the Court voted in favor of the parents, their decision

reflecting that schools need to offer more than the minimum of services to special

education students for them to succeed (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District).

Schools need to provide a free and appropriate education with accommodations and

modifications as listed in a students’ IEP as legally required by IDEA and FRAPE

(Webb). Ms. Young must attempt to accommodate Jonathan so he may attend the school.

In McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools, parents of a student with severe disabilities

brought the school to court because they believed the school violated IDEA with the

school’s placement decision of the self-contained classroom (McLaughlin v. Holt Public

Schools). The court did not think that the school broke IDEA with the decision to place

the student in a self-contained classroom. Part of this decision was based on the view of

the courts that the school and school staff have the experience and education to know

what is the best placement for the student (McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools). With Ms.
 4
RESTRICTIVE SETTINGS AND STUDENTS RIGHTS
Young, her decision that the school may not be an appropriate setting for Jonathan may

be justified in-part because of her experience.

If Ms. Young, within the legal recruitments required by IDEA, FRAPE, and

Jonathan’s IEP can show that Jonathan may be disruptive to the other students at the

school her decision may be justified. In Sacramento City Unified School Dist. v. Holland,

the courts ruled in favor of keeping a student in the general education classroom as

opposed to a more restrictive setting (Sacramento City Unified School Dist. v. Holland).

However, the courts' set-up factors that must be considered when deciding least

restrictive environment for a special needs student, one of them being disruption to other

students. If Ms. Young can show that Jonathan’s presence would be disruptive to other

students her decision may be justified.

With the nature of these type of cases being very individualized, I would need to

know more facts to decide. There are too many factors, such as Jonathan’s current IEP,

and the teams input about placement. Jonathan’s social, emotional, and behavioral history

all would have to be considered. With courts and current laws clearly in favor of

educating students in the least restrictive environments, I do not see Ms. Young’s

decision is justified. Unless Jonathan has issues with violence, I do not see Ms. Young,

especially by herself, being able to deny Jonathan placement at a school within the

district.
 5
RESTRICTIVE SETTINGS AND STUDENTS RIGHTS
References
Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. (1999). Retrieved April 16, 2017,

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

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. (2017). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools. (2002). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1250134.html

Sacramento City Unified School Dist. v. Holland. (1994). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from

http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed_files/rachel.htm

The Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of A Special Education Student. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16,

2017, from http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/03/22/521094752/the-supreme-court-

rules-in-favor-of-a-special-education-student

Webb, D. L., Underwood, J. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc