Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities Dukes

Artifact #5

Education of Students with Disabilities

Tiffany Dukes

College of Southern Nevada

October 14, 2017

Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities Dukes

Education of Students with Disabilities

Debbie Young, a cultivated principal. Not to mention Young was also a previous

assistant principal and a special education teacher as well. Young is being accused of

withholding enrollment to a disabled student Jonathan, who has a range of ailments such as:

profoundly mentally disabled, spastic quadriplegic, and seizure disorders. Unfortunately, his

disadvantages have specific requirements that must be met such as the services of a full time

nurse. Debbie argues that her school cannot provide the services of a full time nurse due to the

fact that it was costly.

Furthermore, Debbie argues the extraordinary expenses to educate the student is not

likely and she feels that the school is not the best placement option for Jonathan. However,

before the school can deny Jonathan enrollment they must perform the adequate tests to

determine his eligibility. Jonathans parents argue that under the Individuals With Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA), must have available to him a free and appropriate education regardless of

the severity of his infirmities.

Before the court decisions in the 1970s case of the Pennsylvania Association of

Retarded Citizens v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v Washington D.C. Board of

Education, laws which allowed the expulsion from school or failed to provide education for

children who were unable to benefit from regular education programs(Underwood, Webb,

141).

In Mills v Board of Education of the District of Columbia the Court made it clear that

students with disabilities must be given a public education, and that financial limits were a moot

point in providing education to these students (Mills v. Board of Education of District of

Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities Dukes

Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (1972). Even though Jonathans disabilities are considered to be

severe along with a hefty expense, Young has argued the burden would be too costly.

Fortunately, Jonathan cannot be denied an education due to the severity of his debilties because

he meets all requirements outlined in the three prong test. Jonathan clearly has a disability, he

would benefit from the special education and his needs would be meet under all restrictions

outlined as a related service not a medical service.

In similarity, the case of Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F., parents

requested a due process hearing under IDEA concerning the school's refusal to provide their

quadriplegic son nursing services. Fortunately for the parents, the judge ruled the school district

would be required to provide the services under IDEA as a related service (Cedar Rapids

Independent School District v. Garrett F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999). Just as Cedar Rapids, under

IDEA, the school district is required to provide related services to Jonathan so that he may

receive an appropriate education. However, Jonathan does require a specialty trained nurse to

provide care, fortunately he does not need to be under the care of a physician. Because Jonathan

is not strictly govern under a physician's care and only a nurse's care the school should allow

Jonathan to attend. Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. gave us the precedent

of what was a required medical service or a related service. The district court granted the

parents summary judgment on the ground that the nursing services were related services

rather than excluded medical services (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 154). Just like in the

above mentioned court case the student requires a nurse, but only in regards to receiving a free

and appropriate education.

However, if Jonathan was already given adequate education and services in his previous

grade, he is not being turned away from the public school system. The parents have to
Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities Dukes

understand in order to receive the care Jonathan needs, they might have to make some

unfavorable arrangements. The school district can move Jonathan to a different school that could

provide the necessary requirements he may need. Unfortunately, Principal Youngs does not feel

as her school has the capabilities to provide an appropriate education for him. In the case,

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools the Circuit Court ruled that a student can be placed at a

school outside of their neighborhood if the school was able to provide the program that child

needed (Underwood & Webb, 2006)

As Underwood and Webb (2006) mentioned in the court case Beth B. v. Clay, provided

an example of how the schools IEP program placed a student in a self-contained classroom.

Much to the parents objections, the court sided with the school stating the school official's

decision about how to best educate Beth is based on expertise that we cannot match (p. 155).

However due to Youngs knowledge of the school and her years of involvement with special

education, she has decided that the Jonathan would not benefit from her school for appropriate

education. The student would be better off in a residential school closer to him. These facilities

are outfitted for Jonathans every need and care.

In conclusion, if all proper procedures were taken into consideration while determining

the eligibility of Jonathan, I believe that principal Young having an extensive background in

education has the necessary knowledge in refusing enrollment. I would side with Young and her

decision. Unfortunately, I am sure this is not what Jonathan's parents would wish for but due to

the fact that Young has the wisdom and qualifications in the field of educating. I feel as if Young

has a better understanding of the kind of education that would be provided. Furthermore, due to

Jonathans disabilities the school would have the necessary criteria in determining whether or not

Jonathan is at risk of being in the bracket that requires a physicians care and/or major medical
Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities Dukes

services. Based on the principals response that the school would be subjected to extraordinary

expenses, it seems his medical needs are more prevalent than his educational needs.

References

Beth B. v. Clay, 126 F.Supp.2d 532 (2000).

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999).

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools, 133 F.Supp.2d 994 (2001).

Artifact #5 Education of Students with Disabilities Dukes

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (1972).

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teacher's Rights. In School Law for Teachers (p. 141, 155).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.