Running head: SPECIAL EDUCATION

Artifact #5 Special Education: Debbie Young

Jennifer McNutt
College of Southern Nevada
10/019/2016

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Abstract
The subject of proper placement of the disabled and handicapped is often difficult. Parents,
teachers, and other school administration wants what is best for every child. Sometimes these
types of decisions can be hard to make. Not everyone may agree on the proper placement. It may
take a while before the true least restrictive environment is determined (LRE). Below is a
scenario involving the placement of a special education child.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

3
Special Education: Debbie Young
Introduction

Mrs. Debbie Young currently serves as an experienced principle. Furthermore, she is

noted as having history as a special education teacher, as well as having served as an assistant
principal at an affluent high school located in a Southern school district. Recently, Mrs. Young
was approached by Johnathans parents. Johnathan would be a new perspective student attending
Mrs. Youngs school. It is important to understand that Johnathan does have some handicaps and
disabilities requiring the need for constant care by a specially trained nurse. Johnathan is
reported to have spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. He is also profoundly mentally
disabled. Upon hearing Johnathans case, Mrs. Young rejected the parents request stating the
school would incur extraordinary expense in the childs care and that the school was not the most
appropriate place for the child.
Pro Support
Many factors must be considered in determining just what the least restrictive
environment for every student is. No two children with the same disability or handicap should be
treated in the same fashion. It will require proper testing to determine the exact fit for these
students. Some students may learn best in the general classroom setting. Others may be
determined to learn best in a special education setting. Yet, another group may find the best fit in
a specialized school setting. This may be the case with Johnathan. The schools decision as to
where to best educate a child is based on certain knowledge to some cannot contest (Underwood,
2006, p. 155). This same view is further clarified in the case of Sacramento City Unified
School District v. Holland (1994). Many things must be taken into question when determining

SPECIAL EDUCATION

the Least Restrictive Environment for students. Considerations such as: Where will the least
amount of interruption to the childs day take place? What is the nonacademic benefit? The
effects of the childs presence on other students and teachers within the classroom? The cost of
mainstreaming the child (Underwood, p.155, 2006)?
It is the belief of Mrs. Young that the guideline set out in the Individuals with
Disabilities Act (IDEA) are being followed in this case. As brought forth in the case of Board Of
Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v Rowley (1982), the right to free
education does not always mean in a public school setting. We must provide each child with the
best services to meet their individual learning needs. For Johnathan, it has been determined that
it cannot be done within our high school.
Con Support
It is the belief of Jonathans parents that there should be know argument of extraordinary
expense in this matter. The expenses accrued by Johnathans care are those that fall under the
category of related services. These services include transportation, many psychological and
health services, support services, assistive technology, and transition services (Underwood,
p.153, 2006). While physician services and individually required equipment are not covered,
Jonathans nursing care would be. These charges in question are very similar to those discussed in
the case of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984). It is the belief of Johnathans
parents reason that all of expenses that that student incurs throughout the school day are directly
related to him being able to fully benefit from the school setting.
Moreover, it is believed that Mrs. Young failed to follow proper procedural due process
guidelines. There was never any record shown of Jonathans parents being notified of any
proceedings in writing. They were never notified of IEP meetings, offered the right to be an

SPECIAL EDUCATION

advocate for their child, or given a chance to view their childs records. Nor were they given a
notification of their rights and safeguards under IDEA. As in the case of J.S. v. Attica Central
Schools (2011) it is our belief that Mrs. Young and the school have severely violated the
guidelines set forth of IDEA. Johnathan should be allowed to go through is IDEA/ IEP process
again before a final determination is made.
Final Thoughts
It is my personal belief that the IDEA procedural due process was not was not followed
in this case. There was no evidence of meeting being held to determine Johnathans IEP needs.
There is no evidence of any participants of these meeting. Where the childs teachers even
present? With that being said, I believe that a stay put should be put in place until Johnathan
can be re-evaluated properly (Underwood, p.157, 2006). I also believe that many of the cost
involved in the students care are covered under related services. However, before the true LRE
can be determined for this student he will need to be properly retested.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

References
Board Of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v Rowley, No. 80-1002 (June
28, 1982).
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, No. 83-558. (United States Supreme Court July 5,
1984).
J.S. v. Attica Central Schools, No. 00-CV-513S. (United States District Court, W.D. New York
December 09, 2011).
Sacramento City Unified School District v. Holland, No. 92-15608. (United States Court Of
Appeals Ninth Circuit January 24, 1994).
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.