Running Head: SPECIAL EDUCATION

Students and Special Education

Monica Burgos
Sherry Herington
College of Southern Nevada

Running Head: SPECIAL EDUCATION

Debbie Young is a specialized high school principal. She has been a special education
teacher as well as an assistant principal. The school district that she works in is located in the
South and it is a well-improved and wealthy district. The parents of one of her disabled students
approach her one-day asking for a request. Jonathan is a tenth grade student who has various
disabilities that require for continuous care by a nurse. He is extremely mentally disabled, has a
seizure disorder and has spastic quadriplegia. Spastic quadriplegia is an effect on all four limbs,
both arms and legs. (Spastic Quadriplegia) Young talks to Jonathans parents and explains why
she cannot provide a nurse for Jonathans disabilities. The reasons are due to high expenses and
her personal opinion, advising them that the school is not the best placement for Jonathan.
In the case of [Cedar Rapids School District v. Garrett] is a similar case, is about a
student in a wheelchair and a ventilator dependent. Garrett needs help for his daily needs while
he is in school. The school district denied the help explaining that it was not legally obligated to
provide one-on-one care. (Cedar Rapids Comm. Sch. Dist. v. Garret) Garretts parents then filed
suit against Cedar Rapids School District.
The IDEA meaning Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is an act that protects the rights
of the students with disabilities by ensuring that everyone received a free appropriate public
education also known as FAPE, regardless of ability (Educational Issues). FAPE can be provided
to students with disabilities ages 3-21. (PowerPoint Edu210, Students with Disabilities) The
District Court and the Court of Appeals conclusion was that Garrett should be able to go to
school and get the help necessary. There were 7 votes for Garrett and 2 against. Even though
having a one-on-one nurse of help can be expensive the court decided that Garrett is protected by
the IDEA.

Running Head: SPECIAL EDUCATION

In another case it was a similar scenario. In the case of [Timothy W. v. Rochester School
District] Timothy was handicapped, he had development disabilities like spastic quadriplegia,
cerebral palsy and cortical blindness. When he was 4 years old, the school board in Rochester,
New Hampshire had a meeting with Timothys pediatrician and other professionals. In the
meeting they wanted to know if Timothy was capable of going to school and qualifying for the
special education and related services. His pediatrician and other professionals stated that he was
capable to receive physical and occupational therapy but 2 other pediatricians said he had no
educational potential. The board then decided that he would not qualify for the educational
services because he had no educational potential. (Timothy W. v. Rochester Sch. Dist.) After a
couple more meetings with pediatricians the school board decided that Timothy was not capable
of benefitting. Timothys attorney filed suit after many attempts. According to the attorney the
school board had violated Timothys equal protection and due process. The court decided that the
school board was not obligated to provide Timothy with any special educational services because
he did not benefit. The school board had also violated the EAHCA meaning Education for All
Handicapped Children Act. When the attorney filed suit for violating the EAHCA then the court
change its mind. EAHCA protected handicapped children especially those in real need of
education like Timothy. Timothy had everything the EAHCA needed to protect him. In this case
the court decided that Timothy was protected by the EAHCA and qualified for special education
services.
The case of [Rachel Holland v. Unified School District], Rachel was a mentally retarded
eleven year old. Her parents wanted Rachel to attend a regular classroom full time instead of a
part-time special education class and a part-time regular class. Rachel was motivated to learn
while she was in a regular class by seeing her classmates work. She was not a disruptive student

Running Head: SPECIAL EDUCATION

when she was in her regular class. The District had already exaggerated the cost of Rachels
expenses if she was moved to a full-time regular classroom. The school district did not want to
provide Rachel with any more services than she was already receiving. Rachel had a hearing
officer working on her case and he evaluated every decision the school district had taken. At the
end of this case the court decided that the appropriate placement for Rachel was in a full-time
regular classroom with some services. (Sacramento v Rachel H.)Her hearing officer provided the
facts to the court explaining how Rachel benefitted from a full-time regular classroom hours and
how she was not disruptive to other students learning.
LRE means Least Restrictive Environment meaning children with disabilities are to be educated
with children who are not disabled to the maximum extent appropriate (Least Restrictive
Environment).
In Rachels case LRE would be a great benefit because she was more productive when she was
with other students. She would learn by seeing her classmates as remodels.
In the last case of Amy Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson School District is a little bit
different. Amy was in kindergarten and was a deaf student. Before she began kindergarten,
Amys parents met with the school administrators to examine the available services Amy
qualified for. One of the services was that Amy had, was a sign language interpreter in class.
Except that after two weeks the interpreter said that Amy did not need his services in the
classroom. In her school the program IEP was available, meaning Individualized Education
Program. The IEP would instead provide Amy with an FM wireless hearing aid, receive
instruction from a tutor for an hour a day and have a three-hour period with a speech therapist.
Surprisingly her parents objected the offer and wanted the sign language interpreter instead. The

Running Head: SPECIAL EDUCATION

school then denied Amys parents request. The decision in this case was that the court did not
think that Amy was entitled to a sign language interpreter in the classroom (Education Law).
Each of this cases are different and have a special student in between suffering for their
services. In the case of Debbie Young, Jonathan and his parents, Young is a specialized teacher
with disabled students. She has had experience with students like Jonathan throughout her career.
She denied the nurse to them because as the principal she is in charge of knowing the expenses it
will create. But as a special education teacher she tells Jonathans parent that school might not be
the best option for Jonathan. Debbie Young has a good point why she thinks Jonathan should not
be at school. Jonathan is extremely disabled and maybe he needs help developing a little more
but not at school.
Jonathans parents want the best for their son and the best is for him to receive an
education. Jonathan is protected by the IDEA and FAPE. Jonathan is disabled, mentally retarded;
with seizure disorders and other disabilities but as a student he needs to receive his educational
services.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act protects Jonathan from schools, teachers and
school boards that do not want to educate him or provide him with the necessarily services.
Jonathan qualifies for the Free Appropriate Public Education with all his disabilities. With all the
examples given, Jonathan should be able to receive the help and services needed. The school
district should pay for his expenses because is a disabled student with the desire to learn. If
Jonathan has survived all the way to tenth grade, why would he stop now. He is almost
graduating, so the school should help him graduate and provide him with the services he needs.

Running Head: SPECIAL EDUCATION

REFERENCE PAGE
1- Spastic Quadriplegia, Retrieved from http://www.brainandspinalcord.org/cerebralpalsy/types/spastic-quadriplegia.html

2 Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret, Retrieved from

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_96_1793

3 Educational Issues. Retrieved from http://www.help4adhd.org/education/rights/idea

4 PowerPoint Education 210 Students with Disabilities

5 Timothy W. v. Rochester Sch. Dist. Retrieved from: http://www.britannica.com/topic/TimothyW-v-Rochester-New-Hampshire-School-District

6 Sacramento v. Rachel H. Retrieved from http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed_files/rachel.htm

7 Least Restrictive Environment. Cambron-McCabe, N., McCarthy, M., & Eckes, S. (2014).
Legal Rights Of Teachers And Students, Third Edition: Pearson, Page 154.
8 Education Law. Retrieved from http://usedulaw.com/185-board-of-education-of-the-hendrickhudson-central-school-district-v-rowley.html