Running head: DISABLED CHILDREN !

Disabled Children Have Rights

Buffy M. Thomas

College of Southern Nevada

DISABLED CHILDREN !2

Abstract

This paper examines the possible outcomes of principal, Debbie Young’s, denial of high school

placement to a severely disabled student, Jonathan. The reviewer gives a brief overview of

federal initiatives that have guaranteed the rights of children with disabilities. These include the:

Rehabilitation Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA); as well as, free and appropriate public education [FAPE] and least

restrictive environment [LRE], regulations under IDEA. The following Supreme Court Cases

are discussed as all points of view are considered in Jonathan’s case: Cedar Rapids Community

School District v. Garret F. (1999); Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District

(1989); Sacramento Unified School District v. Holland (9th Cir. 1994); and Irving Independent

School District v. Tatro (1984). The examiner gives a detailed analysis of how the above court

cases are relevant to Jonathan’s situation. Based on the evidence and the court cases presented,

the reviewer finds that the principal’s denial of Jonathan’s placement at the high school is not in

compliance with the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, nor IDEA federal regulations. Moreover,

Jonathan was not provided FAPE nor LRE as specified under IDEA.

DISABLED CHILDREN !3

Disability Rights

Case Review

Jonathan is a tenth grade student with multiple disabilities which include: profound

mental disability, spastic quadriplegia, and seizure disorder. Jonathan’s mother approached the

high school principal, Debbie Young, to request educational placement for Jonathan in the high

school. Debbie Young, who also served as a Special Education teacher before she became a

principal, denied the request. Young’s decision was based on the severity of Jonathan’s multiple

disabilities, his need of a specially trained nurse, and the excessive expense the school would

incur to accommodate his medical needs. Due to the above factors, Principal Young believes the

high school is not the best placement for Jonathan’s care.

Discussion

Congress has recognized the necessity for extra federal protection that guarantees the

rights of those with disabilities. For this reason, Congress as enacted federal initiatives to be

adopted by the states. Two such initiatives, the Rehabilitation Act and the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), come with attached federal regulations that States must

comply with if they agree to accept federal funding. States do, however, have the option of

declining federal funding, thereby eliminating the requirement to comply with the initiatives’

regulations. The Rehabilitation Act of 1975 defined disabilities as “a physical or mental

impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of impairment,

or is regarded as having an impairment” (Cambron-MacCabe et. al., 2014, p. 144-145).

Qualifying students, under the regulations for the Rehabilitation Act, must be provided an
DISABLED CHILDREN !4

accommodation plan for assistance and services to allow participation in any programs or

activities available to students who do not have disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA) included those with intellectual, hearing, speech, language, visual,

emotional, orthopedic, autistic, learning, or other health impairments; and those that suffer from

brain trauma. States who accept IDEA funding must agree to use every effort to find and assess

children with disabilities, provide an individualized education program (IEP) prepared by an IEP

team, and ensure each child receives a “free and appropriate public education [FAPE] that is

made available in the least restrictive environment [LRE]” (Cambron-MacCabe et. al., 2014, p.

152). The IDEA regulations ensure student placement in a public or private school with a

qualified teacher in a regular full-time classroom, unless it is determined the student would

adversely affect the teacher’s ability to teach or the students’ ability to learn. Another initiative,

Congress enacted to prevent discrimination against the disabled, is the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA is not optional and does not come with federal funding. All states,

public and private agencies, must comply with the ADA regulations. As a result of the

mandatory requirement to comply with ADA regulations, all states are presently receiving

federal aid under IDEA, thereby must also abide by IDEA regulations (Cambron-MacCabe et.

al., 2014, p. 147).

Jonathan’s mother is seeking protection of her son’s constitutional right to receive a free

and appropriate public education [FAPE] in a least restrictive environment [LRE] by placement

in the high school. The Plaintiff’s attorney claims the school district is in direct violation of the

Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and IDEA regulations by denying Jonathan’s placement in high school.
DISABLED CHILDREN !5

Prosecutors rely on Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.; Timothy W. v.

Rochester, New Hampshire, School District; and Sacramento Unified School District v. Holland

to build their case. In Cedar Rapids v. Garret, when Garret was four years old, he severed his

spinal column in a motorcycle accident and was paralyzed from the neck down. Garret’s mental

capacity was not affected and he had grown into an attentive, intelligent and amiable boy. Garret

was able to control his motorized wheelchair with a straw device and operate a computer with a

head device. He attended regular classes and progressed well in school. However, Garret

needed full-time nursing assistance to take care of his physical needs, such as his catheterization

and ventilator. Garret’s mother requested the school provide the nursing care that Garret needed

during the school day. Much like Jonathan’s case, the school district argued that the severity of

Garret’s multiple disabilities, should be considered “medical service” and providing this service

would incur excessive expense on the school. The Court held that under IDEA “any health

service a student may need to participate in a school setting had to be provided, regardless of cost

or resulting financial impact on the district” (Cambron-MacCabe et. al., 2014, p. 161). Jonathan’s

multiple physical needs can also be attended to by a trained school nurse and the courts have

established that the school district is financially responsible for his health services “regardless of

the cost,” under IDEA.

Similarly, in Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, the Court held

that under IDEA the school district is responsible for the education and funding of health

services for all children with disabilities heedless to the extent of the disabilities. In this case,

not only did Timothy have multiple disabilities, he was also severely intellectually disabled. His
DISABLED CHILDREN !6

pediatrician maintained that Timothy was able to respond to sound and stimuli and would benefit

from physical and occupational therapy. However, the school board concluded he was not

“capable of benefitting” from special educational services due to the severity of his condition. In

this case the Court took on an expanded view of a free and appropriate education, which

included the development of fundamental cognitive, motor, and communication skills. In

Jonathan’s case, the principal does not feel that the high school is an appropriate placement for

Jonathan with his array of disabilities. Nonetheless, the courts have established that IDEA is not

conditional upon the multiplicity or the severity of the disability. Rather, all children are entitled

to an education, including fundamental developmental skills.

Similarly, in the Sacramento Unified School District v. Holland, Rachel Holland was

profoundly mentally disabled and the school district did not believe she would benefit from

placement in a regular class for a full day. In addition, the cost of the extra assistance Rachel

would need by such a placement would incur an exorbitant expense on the school district.

During the ongoing case, Rachel’s parents enrolled her in a full day Kindergarten class at a

private school, where she was able to progress in learning and imitating her classmates. The

Court ruled that the school district did not meet the IDEA regulation of an adequate endeavor for

placement in a least restrict environment (LRE). Further, the court found the school district

exaggerated the cost of Rachel’s placement in a full-time regular classroom and under the free

and appropriate public education (FAPE) regulation, the school district was financially

responsible for the extra related services Rachel would need during the school day. Here again

the courts have established that IDEA regulation entitle disabled children to health services by a
DISABLED CHILDREN !7

qualified school nurse and other related service, regardless of the financial burdens, for a free

and appropriate education.

Given the above three court cases, the Petitioner seeks stare decisis, thus relying on legal

decisions made in preceding court cases, in protecting Jonathan’s Constitutional right to a free

and public education under IDEA, regardless of the severity of his condition. Jonathan’s case

closely reflects the cases presented above. The Petitioner requests Jonathan’s protection against

discrimination due to his disability, by allowing placement in the high school in compliance with

ADA and IDEA regulations.

The principal of the high school alleges that the severity and extent of Jonathan’s

disabilities make high school an inappropriate placement for Jonathan. He has been diagnosed

with profound mental disabilities, spastic quadriplegia, and a seizure disorder that requires

constant care by a specially trained nurse. The multiplicity of Jonathan’s disorders will incur a

substantial financial burden on the school and the school does not have the capabilities to care

for his medical needs. Council for the high school claims that the principal’s refusal to place

Jonathan in the high school complies with the original intent of the IDEA regulations under the

medical exemption. According to IDEA, the requirements exclude medical services, except for

the intent of diagnosis and evaluation. In Jonathan’s case, his medical needs are extensive and

require specialized training that if not done correctly, could cause harm to Jonathan. Council

looks to the dissenting opinion in Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

According to dissenting judge, Justice Thomas, the majority opinion in Cedar Rapids v. Garret

relied heavily on the Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, in which the Court clarified the
DISABLED CHILDREN !8

difference between medical service and health service provision of IDEA. The Court held that

medical services included services that can only be provided by a licensed physician, whereas

health service are those services that can be provided by a school nurse or other qualified aid.

Justice Thomas disagreed. Just Thomas wrote:

The Court need not have looked beyond the text of IDEA, which expressly indicates that

school districts are not required to provide medical services, except for diagnostic and

evaluation purposes. The majority asserts that Tatro precludes reading the term ‘medical

services’ to include "all forms of care that might loosely be described as ‘medical.’” The

majority does not explain, however, why ‘service’ that are ‘medical’ in nature are not

‘medical services’….The primary problem with Tatro, and the majority’s reliance on it

today, is that the Court focused on the provider of the services rather than the services

themselves. (“Wrightslaw,” 2015)

Correspondingly with Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion, Council for Debbie Young asks the

court to base its opinion on the text of IDEA, rather than a case that may not have correctly

interpreted Congress’ intent regarding the definition of “medical services.”

The school district’s defense further argues that in accepting federal funding under IDEA,

the State did not knowingly agree to the financial burden that providing services that are medical

would amass in the placement of disabled students. Council once again looks to Justice Thomas’

dissenting opinion in Cedar Rapids v. Garret, respecting the funding agreement between the

states and the federal government:

DISABLED CHILDREN !9

Because IDEA was enacted pursuant to Congress’ spending power…a law that,

"condition[s] an offer of federal funding on a promise by the recipient...amounts

essentially to a contract between the Government and the recipient of funds." [524 U. S.

274, 276 (1998)]….It follows that we must interpret Spending Clause legislation

narrowly, in order to avoid saddling the States with obligations that they did not

anticipate. (“Wrightslaw,” 2015)

In summary, the school district seeks affirmation of the principal’s decision in denying

Jonathan’s placement based on: a more narrow interpretation of the “medical services” regulation

of IDEA; and the unanticipated financial obligation expected by the State in providing those

services, due to the ambiguity of the text of IDEA regulation.

Conclusion

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees equal protection

of the laws to all citizens. Additional federal initiatives ensure that even those with disabilities

have equal protection of their Constitutional rights. Congress recognizes that those who are

disabled have a history of discrimination and segregation. In order to correct that injustice, they

have enacted federal regulations under the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and IDEA in an effort to

assure Constitutional protection of all disabled citizens. Based on the rulings in the preceding

cases, this court finds that refusing Jonathan placement at the high school is against the

regulations mandated by IDEA. Jonathan’s disabilities qualify him for protection under ADA

and IDEA. Additionally, because Jonathan has proven his ability to benefit from a full-time

regular classroom, IDEA mandates that Jonathan receives a free and appropriate public education
DISABLED CHILDREN !10

—regardless of the expense of health and related services required to care for his physical needs

throughout the day. Although the court recognizes the genuine concern of the substantial

expense on the school district, federal law has not provided financial immunity for taking care of

the needs of the disabled. Conversely, the courts have regularly upheld the ruling in Cedar

Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., “that any health service a student may need to

participate in a school setting had to be provided, regardless of cost or resulting financial impact

on the district” (Cambron-MacCabe et. al., 2014, p. 161). Thus, it is the ruling of this court that

Jonathan must be given placement in the high school.


DISABLED CHILDREN !11

References

Cambron-MacCabe, N.H., McCarthy, M.M., Eckes, S.E. (2014). Legal rights of teachers and

students. Boston: Pearson.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F, 526 U.S. 66 (1999).

Encyclopedia Britannica. (2015, November 3). Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/topic/

Timothy-W-v-Rochester-New-Hampshire-School-District.

Inclusionspr11. (2015, November 3). Retrieved from https://inclusionspr11.wikispaces.com/

Sacramento+City+Unified+School+District+vs.+Holland

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984).

Legal Information Institute. (2015, November 3). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/

supremecourt/text/468/883.

Sacramento Unified School District v. Holland, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994).

Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, 875 F.2d 924 (1989).

Wrightslaw. (2015, November 3). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/

case_Cedar_Rapids_SupCt_990303.htm