Artifact 5: Special Education 1

Artifact 5

Special Education

Cynthia Guzman

College of Southern Nevada

EDU 210 - 1004

December 2, 2018
Artifact 5: Special Education 2

Special Education

Seasoned high school principal, Debbie Young was serving as a special education teacher

and an assistant principal in a progressive school district in the South when she was approached

by the parents the parents of a severely disabled 10th grader, Jonathan. Jonathan has multiple

disabilities requiring constant care by a specialized trained nurse. He is also mentally disabled,

has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. The parents of Jonathan requested he

attended one of the schools in the district which Young denied. It was denied due to

extraordinary expense and Young believes that the school is not the most appropriate placement

for Jonathan. The question the court has to answer in this case is if Young’s decision is

defensible or not.

The first case that will be used to determine Debbie Young’s decision to deny Jonathan’s

parents’ request as not defensible is ​LT v. Warwick School Committee​ (2004). This case took

place in Rhode Island where N.B., autistic son of Lt. T.B., had just moved because of the Lt..’s

reassignment by the United States Navy. The Warwick School District met with the Lt.

immediately and offered an IEP which would place N.B. in a self contained classroom which had

been recently established for autistic children of his age. In this classroom, they used a modified

version of educational techniques known as Treatment and Education of Autistic and

Communication-Handicapped Children. Lt. T.B. rejected this offer. He preferred the use of a

different technique, the Discrete Trial Training. The parents of N.B. then decided to enroll their

child into a private school. Warwick offered another IEP to them but the parents refused and

continued the enrollment process initiated before. They then called for a due process hearing.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals came to the conclusion that an autistic student was not
Artifact 5: Special Education 3

entitled to a particular program preferred by the parents. The Court stated, “IDEA does not

require a public school to provide what is best for a special needs child, only that it provide an

IEP that is ‘reasonably calculate’ to provide an ‘appropriate’ education as defined in federal and

state law,”(Underwood & Webb). This case proves that Young’s decision is not defensible

because she just assumed that Jonathan’s IEP would consist of outrageously expensive services

and did not even present an IEP to the parents. A stated by IDEA, public schools only need to

provide what is appropriate for the education of the child and the not the absolute best or most

“expensive”.

The second case that will be that will be used in finding that Young’s decision not

defensible is ​Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garret F. (​ 1999). In this case, a

quadriplegic student was dependent on a ventilator which required continuous nursing services.

The parents of the child provided the nursing services at school until the child entered 5th grade.

They requested to the school district to provide the services, but the district denied them. The

parents then requested a due process hearing under IDEA. The U.S. Supreme Court provided

clarification to this case deciding that medical services that can only be administered by a

physician did not have to be provided by the school or covered by IDEA. Services that can be

provided by someone other than a physician can be considered and will fall under “related

services” of IDEA which, the school district must pay and provide for if deemed necessary for

the child to benefit from special education.The court would find Young’s decision not defensible

because Jonathan requiring a specially trained nurse would fall under “related services” just like

in this case, ​Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garret F. ​(1999). Young is not
Artifact 5: Special Education 4

following her obligated duty in providing a necessary service to a student in order for him to

benefit from special education.

The first case that will be discussed that supports Debbie Young’s decision to deny

Jonathan’s parents’ request as defensible is ​Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central

School District v. Rowley ​(1982). In this case, deaf student Amy Rowley was given an FM

hearing aid in kindergarten. This device amplified spoken words by teachers and students. She

completed the year successfully. The next year Rowley was given the same device in addition to

instruction from a tutor for the deaf 1 hour a day and a speech therapist 3 hours a week. Her

parents also wanted the school to provide a sign language interpreter. The school district denied

their request so the parents of Amy Rowley filed a lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that,

“...the school did not have to provide the best education, but one reasonably calculated to confer

educational benefits,” (Underwood & Webb). Young’s decision is defensible because she looked

at all the services Jonathan would require for a proper education and determined that their school

could not provide the appropriate education Jonathan is required to receive. It would not be fair

for Jonathan to receive any but a free and appropriate education.

Based on the cases presented previously, I believe that the court will find Debbie

Young’s decision on denying Jonathan’s parents’ request not defensible. I came to this

conclusion by analyzing the cases ​LT v. Warwick School Committee​ (2004) and ​Cedar Rapids

Independent School District v. Garret F. ​(1999). The ​LT v. Warwick School Committee​ (2004)

cases supports this decision on the fact that IDEA does not require schools to give the best

education but an appropriate one to a child requiring special needs services. Young did neither

by denying the request. The ​Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garret F. (​ 1999) case
Artifact 5: Special Education 5

supports this decision also because Jonathan requiring a trained nurse for assistance is considered

a related service as determined by IDEA. The school would have to provide and pay for this

service just like in the ​Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garret F. (​ 1999) case, no

matter the cost.

Artifact 5: Special Education 6

Works Cited

Reuters, Thomson. (n.d). ​LT. v. WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE (20004). ​Retrieved from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1241530.html

Underwood, Julie, and L. Dean. Webb. (2006) ​School Law for Teachers: Concepts and

Applications. ​Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Artifact 5: Special Education 7