Running head: SPECIAL EDUCATION RIGHTS 1

Special Education Rights and Responsibilities

Michelle Quiroz

College of Southern Nevada

SPECIAL EDUCATION RIGHTS 2

Abstract

Debora Young is the principal at a progressive affluent high school in the south. Young

served as a Special Education teacher, also as assistant principal in the past. Seasoned yet

experienced, she should know how to handle situations regarding disabled students. One day she

was approached by the parents of a severely disabled student named Jonathan. This tenth-grade

student suffers from spastic quadriplegia, a seizure disorder, and is profoundly mentally disabled.

Due to his multiple disabilities, he requires constant care from a specially trained nurse at the

school. To this reason Jonathan’s concerned parents pay Mrs. Young a visit, but he refuses their

request due to extreme expenses. She believes that a school may not be the most appropriate

place for Jonathan. Perhaps a private institution, or home schooling would be more suitable for

the disabled student in the eyes of Debora Young.

SPECIAL EDUCATION RIGHTS 3

No matter how extraordinary the expense, it is the school’s responsibility to provide

special services to support disabled students. Denial of services is not only wrong erroneous, but

against the law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or the IDEA, is a federal law

that requires schools to provide special services at no cost to eligible students. The severity of a

disability determines eligibility of a student; which means that Jonathan would be eligible. The

IDEA consists of two parts: part B and part C. Least Restrictive Environment, or the LRE

(pertaining to part B), signifies that schools must educate disabled students in a regular

classroom and provide special aid and support; to the maximum extent appropriate. Disabled

students have a right to free and appropriate education, also known as FAPE. Their rights are

guaranteed by the Rehabilitation act of 1973 and the IDEA.

In 1989 Timothy v. Rochester New Hampshire School District ruled that under the

Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), now known as the IDEA, school boards

were required to provide special-education services regardless how severe the students disability.

Timothy W. was a student that was multiply handicapped and severely mentally disabled. He had

several complex developmental disabilities, spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, and cortical

blindness. The meeting that determined that he was eligible for special education services

concluded that they would provide physical and occupational therapy, and an individual

education program; although two pediatricians reported that he had no educational potential and

wouldn’t benefit from school. The school district refused to provide any services several times;

Timothy’s attorney filed suit, complaining that the school had violated the EAHCA, Equal

Protection, and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that the

EAHCA takes priority in the most severely disabled students and adopts a Zero Reject policy,

even if the student appears to be unable to be educated (Steketee, 2014).

SPECIAL EDUCATION RIGHTS 4

Similarly, the case of Cedar Rapids School district v. Garret F. concluded that students

must be provided with supportive services by the school, no matter how extraordinary the

financial burden. In 1998 Garret was a minor at Cedar Rapids, which was wheel chair bound and

was dependent on a ventilator. During the day, he required professional assistance to his physical

needs, which the school declined due to financial expenses. The District Court and the Court of

Appeals affirmed that schools that no matter the cost schools must provide any possible school

health services to the disabled student, according to the IDEA. Most school districts are funded

by the IDEA or receive other federal funds, so no school is exempt (CEDAR RAPIDS

COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. V. GARRET F., 1998). This case supports the fact that the

school must provide Jonathan with special medical services from a nurse or physician.

Unified School District v. Holland had a particularly different setting. Rachel Holland

had an intellectual disability, and was placed part-time in a special education classroom. Her

parents believed that Rachel would benefit more if she were integrated into a regular classroom

full-time, but their request was rejected by the District. The Hollands sued for the violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment. In court the judge decided that there are four main factors to consider

when placement in a general education classroom is appropriate for a child with disabilities: the

educational benefits available in the regular classroom; the non-academic benefits of interaction

between a student with disabilities and those without disabilities; the impact of the student with

disabilities on the teacher and other children in the regular classroom; and last, the cost of

supplementary aids and services required for mainstreaming the student (9th Circuit Court of

Appeals, n.d.). Schools must take integration into consideration in order to ensure equality and a

chance to socialize and learn from peers. Isolation is not beneficial, and is considered segregation.

All students deserve time in a regular classroom.

SPECIAL EDUCATION RIGHTS 5

To conclude, there is a lot to consider when trying to organize school funds, but Debora

young is wrong to refuse Jonathan’s parents request for a trained professional’s care. The IDEA

enforces schools to provide supportive services to disabled students, and their attention is

focused on severely disabled students, such as Jonathan. Young may think that she is saving the

school a fortune, but she is also breaking a federal law. Recommending a medical or therapeutic

facility for Jonathan was outrageous because he has the right to be in a classroom, and denying

their request is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the IDEA. In order to ensure

equality within the student body it is important to integrate students, not remove them from

school when thought to be unable to benefit from an education.

SPECIAL EDUCATION RIGHTS 6

References

CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. V. GARRET F. (1998, November 04).

Retrieved April 10, 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1793.ZS.html

Lee, A. M. (n.d.). How IDEA Protects You and Your Child. Retrieved April 10, 2017, from

https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/your-childs-rights/basics-about-childs-

rights/how-idea-protects-you-and-your-child

Steketee, A. M. (2014, August 14). Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District.

Retrieved April 10, 2017, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Timothy-W-v- U.S.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (n.d.). Retrieved April 11, 2017, from

http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed_files/rachel.htmRochester-New-Hampshire-School-

District

Written by Christy Calbos on September 29, 2014July 26, 2016. (2016, July 26). What IS Free

and Appropriate Public Education for Your Child? Retrieved April 10, 2017, from

http://impactadhd.com/overcome-school-challenges/what-is-free-appropriate-public-

education-for-your-child