Running Head: ARTIFACT #5 1

Artifact #5: The Right to a Free and Appropriate Education

Olivia M. Norman

College of Southern Nevada

Artifact #5 2

Every parent wants what is best both socially and academically for their child. However,

what a parent wants and what is best, is not always in line with what is guaranteed legally.

Jonathons parents want him to attend a high school in their district with the accompaniment of

his specialized nurse. The attendance of his nurse is necessary due to his multiple disabilities

including spastic quadriplegia, a seizure disorder, and severe mental disability. Debbie Young is

the principal responsible for approving the request for Jonathon to attend one of the schools,

which she denies. With her background as a special education teacher, Young determined that

the school is not an appropriate place for Jonathon. In addition to the appropriateness of the

placement, Young does not feel that the exorbitant cost placing Jonathon in a school setting is

justified. Jonathons parents vehemently disagree with the decision.

In Irving v. Tatro, it was determined that some medically needed assistance is considered

related services and are therefore covered under The Education of Handicapped Act (later

changed to IDEA). Tatro was a young girl in need of catheterization throughout the day, and

without the procedure Amber [Tatro] could not attend classes and benefit from special

education (Irving v. Tatro, 1984). Likewise, Jonathon could conceivably attend special

education classes with the presence of his specialized nurse.

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

referenced the Tatro case when it concluded that the services of a physician (other than for

diagnostic and evaluation purposes) are subject to the medical services exclusion, but services

that can be provided in the school setting by a nurse or qualified layperson are not (Cedar

Rapids v. Garrett F., 1999). Garrett was a quadriplegic who was able to retain information and

flourish in school, but needed someone nearby able to attend to his needs due to being dependent
Artifact #5 3

upon a ventilator. Jonathons parents have a strong case referencing both of these decisions in

their plea for their sons inclusion in the school setting.

There really is no question that Jonathons parents are entitled to a due process hearing if

they believe that their son is not being offered an adequate education opportunity. However,

The burden of proof in challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief

(Schaffer v. Weast, 2005). Brian Schaffers parents sued for reimbursement and legal fees after

sending their son to a private school because they felt that the public school was not providing an

adequate education. The court, however, in this case determined that while they were entitled to

question the schools decision, the burden of proof lies directly on them. Jonathons parents

would also need to prove that the school was not offering the most appropriate education by not

allowing him to attend school. Furthermore, they would need to prove that Ms. Young was

incorrect, even with her extensive experience in the field. This could prove to be quite difficult

following the case of Beth B. v. Clay where The Seveth Circuit deferred to the knowledge of the

school saying, the school officials decision about how to best educate Beth is based on

expertise that we cannot match (quoted from Underwood & Webb, 2006). While Jonathons

parents may know him best personally, they do not necessarily know better than Ms. Young as to

what is most appropriate educationally.

Even though a student with disabilities is guaranteed a free and appropriate education,

they are not guaranteed the best education. For that matter, students without disabilities are also

not guaranteed the best education. LT v. Warwick School Committee determined that even though

LTs family desired a specific program for their child, LT was not entitled to that specific

education at a greater cost, so long as the school was providing an education that it deemed

appropriate. The appeals courts referred to the Rowley case stating IDEA does not require a
Artifact #5 4

public school to provide what is best for a special needs child, only that it provide an IEP that is

reasonably calculated to provide an appropriate education as defined in federal and state law

(LT v. Warwick School, 2004). It is understandable that Jonathons parents want the best and

most inclusive education for their son, but Ms. Young, who is very knowledgeable in matters of

special education, is best suited to weigh the appropriateness and cost of education for Jonathon

against what the parents wish for and think is best for him.

From the first time I read the case regarding Jonathon, I wanted more information. It is

unclear if Jonathon would be able to actually make growth in a school setting. If he is indeed

able to make educational growth in a school setting, such as Garrett F., then his parents

absolutely have a chance of pushing for him to be placed in a school. However, if he is unable to

make growth, Ms. Young is qualified to make a determination as to the most appropriate setting

as is afforded to him by The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act.

Artifact #5 5

References

Cedar Rapids v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.

com/law/caselaw/case_Cedar_Rapids_SupCt_990303.htm.

Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro, 468 US 883 - Supreme Court (1984). Retrieved from

http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.tatro.htm

LT. TB ex rel. NB v. Warwick School Com., 361 F. 3d 80 - Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit (2004).

Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=85786572439449

34366&q=lt+v.+warwick+school+court+case&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29.

Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 - Supreme Court (2005). Retrieved from https://scholar.google

.com/scholar_case?case=17345534621187318493&q=Schaffer+v.+Weast&hl=en&as_sd

t=6,29&as_vis=1.

Underwood, J., Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Person Education, Inc.