Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Artifact #4
Special Education
Rayana Wilder
Professor Herrington
27 April 2019
Artifact #4 Special Education 1
A high school principal, named Debbie Young, used to be a special education teacher and
an assistant principal at another school. Parents of a gravely disabled sophomore student, named
Jonathan, came to see Young about enrolling their child into the school district. Jonathan has
multiple issues such as spastic quadriplegia, a seizure disorder, and being mentally disabled.
With all of this going on, Jonathan has to have a nurse care for him regularly. Due to financial
expenses and the school not being a suitable place for Jonathan, Young denies the parents
Debbie can argue that if the school doesn’t have what the students in order to be
successful then she shouldn’t have to enroll the child. She wouldn’t want to be to blame if
something happens to the student or if Jonathan can’t get what he needs for care and academia.
The student should be where he could strive and have the proper care that can be paid for. Since
she used to be a special education teacher she knows what students with disabilities need, and
that means she knows if the school she works at now is a good fit for Jonathan. A case that help
argue Young’s point would be the Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley case. A deaf student, name Amy,
is very successful student who did well in school despite her lack of hearing. She did better than
a lot of students, however her parents wanted her to have a sign language interpreter. The
supreme courts final decision was that school officials have the right to decide to what is needed
to care for a student’s disabilities and that they do not have to provide the interpreter when Amy
is doing quite well with the support she has now. Debbie can use this case to say that she can
choose what the child needs, and she is not obligated to enroll the student.
The parents can argue that the school should provide for any student and have everything
they need. There is IDEA, which is a legislation that provides free public education to disabled
students, that is made to completely fit their needs. Also, there is FAPE, which is another term
Artifact #4 Special Education 1
that provides school aged children with free public education that is best for them as an
individual. Another term is LRE, this is a federal law that allows for students with disabilities to
be in a classroom with nondisabled students to learn to the fullest of their capabilities, and they
cannot be taken out of that class unless the student is not able to handle it, even with support. A
case that would support their argument would be the Cedar Rapids v. Garret F. case. Which is
about a ventilator dependent young man who is very successful in regular classes but needs a
person there to help with his physical needs while at school. The parents of this young man,
named Garret wanted the district to be the one to pay for the nursing services that is required for
him during the day. The school denied this request, saying that they are not required to help out
with the health care. Under the IDEA the court ruled that the district must pay for the expenses
necessary for Garret’s treatment. Jonathan’s parent could this case to say the district should
already have the tools needed to care their child and that IDEA requires for Young to let
Jonathan be amongst other children, without disabilities, with the fullest extent of education
possible for him. Another case that be used in their favor would be the Timothy v. Rochester
case. This case is about a boy, named Timothy who has a variety of disabilities, like Jonathan.
The board claimed that he would not benefit from being in any form of special education
programs, so they refused any request to put Timothy an any. When taken up to court, they ruled
that no matter the type of disabilities a student has, school boards must provide special education
services. This is also under the IDEA and the parents can use this argue to argue the same
reasons.
To me Young’s choice is not defensible. A lot of the cases seem to be supporting the
parents and children, due to IDEA and other programs mentioned above. Only one of the cases
that I have read, thus far, can be used to defend Debbie, which is the Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley
Artifact #4 Special Education 1
case. In this case Jonathan has full rights to be in a normal classroom to learn like everyone else,
while receiving the support and care he needs. Even though Young most likely wanted what’s
best for Jonathan in a more suitable facility, she still could have made accommodations for him.
I think that the courts will rule in the favor of Jonathan’s parents. Cases such as the ones
mentioned previously, also including the unified school district v. Holland, have valid points that
support the parent’s case. Disabled students are required to be given the chance be challenged in
the classroom and get the same type of education like other students. Student’s shouldn’t have to
be held back in their education just because they need extra care or one-on- one instruction. Any
school should be able to provide for all students because they should all be able to strive.
Artifact #4 Special Education 1
Citation Page
Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/176/
Steketee, A. M. (2018, May 17). Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District.
Hampshire-School-District