Running head: SPECIAL EDUCATION 1

Karen I Villatoro-Gonzalez

Professor Sherry Herington

EDU210 * Artifact #4

April 29, 2016

 2
SPECIAL EDUCATION

ABSTRACT:

In this artifact we find ourselves with a legal case of special education children, what they

are entitled to, what rights they have and can they can or cannot be refused. We have put two

cases into use here Cedar Community School District v Garret F. and Timothy W. v. Rochester,

New Hampshire, School District as well as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Free

Appropriate Public Education rights and the fourteenth amendment due process clause. Jonathan

a child with multiple disabilities is refused an education by Debbie Young, a high school

principal because finds this an extraordinary expense and suggests that the school may not be the

most appropriate placement for Jonathan. After we cover the cases, laws, rights and regulations,

we will come to a conclusion of the outcome of this case.

 3
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Foremost, lets cover the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and what it

states about children in schools with disabilities so we can compare this and other cases to our

case at hand with Ms. Debbie Young and Jonathan. The Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act as explained to us is a federal law that requires schools to serve the educational needs of

eligible students with disabilities. The schools must evaluate students suspected of having

disabilities of any kind including learning disabilities. There is a legal process which parents

most follow if they think that their child needs special education services. IDEA provides right

and protections to children with disabilities and to their parents. Learning those rights can make

it easier for the child to get adequate and legally entitled helps at school. IDEA has gone through

many amendments since it first passed back in 1975 when it was called Education for All

Handicapped Children Act yet its main purpose has not changed. The primary goals are to

protect the rights of children with disabilities so that they may have access to a free and

appropriate public education (FAPE) and in the least restrictive environment. Another purpose is

for parents to have a voice in their childs education and the decisions that are made about the

child. The law gives the parent specific rights and protections and is called procedural

safeguards. IDEA has been around but it has recently been amended making it in one sense very

new even with its long, detailed and powerful history. IDEA covers children from infancy

through high school graduation or age 21 (whichever comes first). Not every child with learning

and attention issues is eligible for special education services under IDEA. The child must be

found to have one of the 13 kinds of disabilities that IDEA covers. They are; autism, deaf-

blindness, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple

 4
SPECIAL EDUCATION

disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairments (including ADHD), specific

learning disability (including dyslexia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia, among others), speech or

language impairment, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment (including blindness). Not every

student with a disability or disabilities qualifies for the special education services. In order to be

eligible, a student must have a disability and as a result of that disability needs special education

in order to make progress in school. To get an idea of our Children and Youth with disabilities

here is a chart where in Figure 1 shows the percentage distribution of children ages 3-21 that

were served under IDEA as well as by the disability type during the school year 2012-2013.

(NOTE: Deaf-blindness, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairments are not shown because

they each account for less than 0.5 percent of children served under IDEA. Due to categories not

shown, detail does not sum to total. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special

Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved

October 3, 2014, from https://inventory.data.gov/dataset/8715a3e8-bf48-4eef-9deb-

fd9bb76a196e/resource/a68a23f3-3981-47db-ac75-98a167b65259. See Digest of Education

Statistics 2014, table 204.30.)

 5
SPECIAL EDUCATION

The steps to getting your child services under IDEA is first an evaluation; which will

determine if the student does have a disability and guide you as to what services and support the

student may need, IEP; Individualized Educational Program is a legal documents that specifies in

detail what the childs goals, disabilities and services and/or support that the school will provide.

Parents have to remember that they are the childs most important advocate and IDEA gives the

parent an equal say in decisions about the childs education. The process may seem complex but

little by little parents get more familiar with the childs rights. In discussing IDEA, it gives us an

idea as to where Jonathan, our case at hand will be but, lets review FAPE and two similar cases

that can support the overall decision that will take place here. Free Appropriate Public Education

or FAPE as we referred to it before in this case study is when a child has a handicap or any type

of disability, the public school system is required by law to give that child a Free Appropriate

Public Education. The child will receive the same education as a child without a disability or

handicap. It can be achieved by giving the child special services, usually written in the IEP as

mentioned before. The services may include accommodations, for children who use adaptive

equipment, services for academic needs, speech and language services and modifications to

make a learning environment more comfortable for the disabled child. The law includes

transportation to and from school and a less restrictive environment to learn in. The law falls

under IDEA and also under the Rehabilitation Act.

The first case we will cover is that of Cedar Community School District v Garret F. 526

US 66 (1999). Per case documents, Garret a minor and student in the Cedar Rapids Community

School District requires a wheelchair and is dependent upon a ventilator. He requires assistance
 6
SPECIAL EDUCATION

in attending to his physical needs during the school day. Yet, the school district declined to

accept financial responsibility for Garrets services for him and for his use in order for him not to

be able to attend that school. The school district believed it was not legally obligated to provide

one-one-one care but an administrative Judge concluded that under IDEA, it was required to

provide school services which are provided by a qualified school nurse or other qualified person

but not the medical services which are limited to services provided by a physician/doctor. The

votes 7 to 2 held that if the services in question are related to keeping the child with disabilities

in school and able to access educational opportunities available to others IDEA funded school

districts must provide such services. Therefore, this school that received federal funding under

IDEA has to provide the one-on-one care like this school and case. The benefits of providing

Garrer with his needed care outweighed the burdens. If we compare this case of Garret with our

case of Debbie Young vs Jonathan, Debbie will find herself at a court hearing reminding her of

IDEA and FAPE. She will have to definitely provide for Jonathan the specially trained nurse that

the parents are asking for. They are not asking for a doctor or physician and the child has all of

the diagnosed disabilities for which he can get the support and services he needs.

The second case is that of Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District.

During an appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals on May 24, 1989 a ruling was made under

IDEA at that time known as the Education for all Handicapped Children Act. The school boards

were required to provide special-education services to any disabled student regardless of the

severity of his or her disabilities. Timothy W. was a multiply handicapped and profoundly

intellectually disabled child with complex developmental disabilities, spastic quadriplegia,

 7
SPECIAL EDUCATION

cerebral palsy and cortical blindness. In 1980, when he was four years old, according to case

findings, the school board in Rochester, New Hampshire convened a meeting to determine

whether he qualified as educationally handicapped under the EAHCA and the corresponding

state statues which would have entitled him to special education and related services. In a

meeting with Timothys pediatrician and other professionals, it was reported that, since he was

capable of responding to sound and other stimulations he should be provided education with an

IEP that included physical and occupational therapy. Two other pediatricians reported that he

had no educational potential and in response, the school board officials maintain that therefore he

was not educationally handicapped because the severity and complexity of his disabilities

prevented him from being capable of benefiting from special education services. They then

refused service for Timothy and in June 1983 there was another meeting to discuss the situation.

Once again, several professionals recommended ad educational program that included physical

therapy because they thought that Timothy could benefit from positioning and handling. At a

later time following a letter from Timothys attorney and after refusal of services for Timothy, the

boards placement team met and recommended special-education services yet the board refused

to authorize such recommended placements and services. According to records, Timothys

attorney then filed a complaint with the State Education Agency which ordered the board to

place him in an educational program and again the board refused that order. In 1984 Timothys

attorney filed a lawsuit with the Federal District Court stating that the board had violated number

of laws and orders, specially the EAHCA, the equal protection and the due process clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment.
 8
SPECIAL EDUCATION

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution contains a due process

clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and therefore the due process clause

acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside

the sanction of law. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clause more broadly

because it provides four protections along with the Fifth amendment: procedural due process (in

civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as

the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Due process ensures the rights and equality

of all citizens.

Unfortunately, after waiting for various state administrative proceedings, the district court

held that the board was not obligated to provide Timothy with special-education services,

because he was not capable of benefitting from such services. Years later, according to

records, in February 7, 1989, the case was argued before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

They looked at the EAHCA specifics and the court stated that any child with qualifying

disabilities specially any child with severe disabilities such as Timothy are entitled to special

education and related services and support. I loved when I read this on the case, the court

explained that the fact that children may appear to be uneducable does not bar them from the

protections of the EAHCA. It stated that on the contrary, the court stated that EAHCA gives

priority to the children with the most-severe disabilities. The court reasoned that the EAHCA

adopts a zero-reject policy with respect to eligibility and that capacity to benefit from special

education is not a prerequisite for children to be eligible for services. After the court taking an

expansive view of what constitutes special education, focusing and noting that it includes

fundamental skills, such as the

 9
SPECIAL EDUCATION

development of motor and communication skills, as well as traditional cognitive skills they

reversed the decision of the district court from 1984.

Timothy like Jonathan both have the opportunity and right to benefit from the laws that at

that time EAHCA now IDEA has implemented. I agree that there is no such child as too

uneducable or not able to learn something that you cannot spend some time and money to

teach. All children, no matter the disability, color of skin, religion, race, sex have the right to an

education and we have to provide them with their rights. I have been Blessed to work with

special education, my mother has taught special education for over 30 years and my brother, the

one with the earring from the last artifact, has taught for the last five and it is a gift to us. We are

able to learn so much from them, they do not depend on us, we depend on them and their

willingness to smile and learn when you provide them time and education. Unfortunately, now

days there are still those schools that may use the funds allocated for these special education

students/classes for other things and limit the use of funds for the child and classroom. It has

been a true learning experience with these cases and at the end of it all is that Youngs decision is

not defensible and my ruling would be that Jonathan is given all the services and support asked

for in order to provide him with an Education.

 10
SPECIAL EDUCATION

References:

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; IDEA

Free Appropriate Public Education Rights; FAPE

Cedar Community School District v Garret F. 526 US 66 (1999)

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

The Fourthteen Amendment Due Process Clause

Chart was from: National Center for Education Statistics

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp