Running Head: ARTIFACT #4 1

Artifact #4

Special Education

Michael Granado

CSN
ARTIFACT #4 2

Abstract

Debbie Young, is a high school principal who has been doing the job for a while. She taught

special education and acted as an assistant principal in a progressive high school located in the

south. The parents of a severely disabled tenth-grade student, Jonathan, has multiple disabilities

requiring and needing the care of a trained nurse that can assist Jonathan with his disability. His

disabilities include spastic quadriplegia, has seizures and is severely mentally disabled. Ms.

Young denies the parents request for her school, stating that due to the extreme expense the

school would have to go through and the type of Jonathans disabilities school is not the most

appropriate placement for Jonathan.

ARTIFACT #4 3

Ms. Young, is certified as a special education teacher. Without knowing all the

particulars of this case, we can argue that her decision could be upheld. Per the individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), there are specific check marks that need to be accomplished

to ensure that the child has the best opportunity to learn. Even if that child has a disability. If

Jonathan, the child who is disabled, took all the appropriate steps within the IDEA concept, he

would have an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP would be designed to provide

the child with educational benefits. Within the IEP would be a screening and evaluation to

determine the severity of the disabilities. Since we do not have this information available to us, I

will assume that with Ms. Youngs expertise and status as principal these steps would have been

taken.

Which brings us to the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Per IDEA the LRE would

be at home or hospital placement due to his disability and how it pertains to the ability for the

student to learn and effect those around him on a day to day basis. This means that even though

Jonathan has the opportunity to be educated with non-disabled peers to the greatest extent that

would be appropriate in conjunction with his disability. And in this case, due to the extent of

Jonathans disability the best situation would be for him to be at a full-time placement in a

residential facility or at home with his nurse. While still getting his special education under the

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Which states that all students with disabilities from

ages three to 21 are entitled to free public education.

Furthering Ms. Youngs correct decision, we can look at Cedar Rapids v Garret (1997).

In this case Garret was a student who was involved in an accident and was left a quadriplegic and

needing a ventilator. The school would not pay for a nurse being present during his school day
ARTIFACT #4 4

due to their belief that his disability was a medical service rather than a supportive service.

The court ruled in favor of Garret stating that the school nurse was able to perform the needs of

the student and therefore was classified as a supportive service and would have to be covered

under the school per IDEA. Now in Jonathans case, the use of the term specialized nurse

comes into play. He is requiring the use of a specialized tailored nurse to assist him with his

needs. He would not have a specialized nurse if not prescribed by a medical professional which

in this case would be a licensed doctor. And per Cedar Rapids v Garret the nurse would have to

do more than diagnosis or evaluate and would therefore be classified as a medical service due to

his spastic quadriplegic and a seizure disorder. This is not including the vast liability the school

would have to undertake, which is where I believe Ms. Young has further cause to say no.

Ms. Youngs decision to exclude Jonathan from school due to his disability is

horrendously wrong. We have no knowledge of or if the school attempted to properly diagnose

the range and severity of his disability. If he has an IEP and is still entitled to FAPE. As we look

into Timothy v Rochester (1989), Timothy was a special needs student suffering from complex

developmental disabilities, spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, seizure disorder and cortical

blindness. To include severe mental disability. Much like Jonathan. The ruling was based on

Timothy having been treated with therapy and having responses to such therapy the court ruled

in favor of Timothy. Stating that the childs ability to benefit from the special education is not a

consideration in whether to provide services. Thus, creating zero reject, a handicapped child,

regardless of the severity of his handicap or how much or little he will benefit from that
ARTIFACT #3 5

education is entitled to special education. When the parents of Jonathan came to Ms. Young,

regarding the education of their child, and per the zero reject rule Ms. Young has to ensure that

Jonathan gets his special education. Not only within the confines of zero reject but also in

conjunction with FAPE and IDEA. It does not matter how severe his disability is Jonathan has as

much right to attend special education classes within Ms. Youngs school. And per the laws and

regulations should not be denied said education.

Additionally, to the unjust decision of Ms. Young, we can see in Sacramento City

Unified School District v Holland (1994) that her choice was wrong. In the case Rachel Holland

was a mentally disabled child who spent time in a special education class during her school day.

Her parents felt that the school could increase the time she spent daily in a regular class to full

time. Meaning that she would be in her regular class amongst her peers. The parents argued that

she was not disruptive. Would be able to expand and develop her social skills and would have

increased educational benefits. The school argues that it would cost too much in order to

accommodate her needs. The court ruled in favor of Holland saying the school district had not

met the burden of proof that Rachel could not be educated in the general education classroom. In

terms of Jonathans case, the school has not done any such due process to determine if he could

benefit from the education that could be provided at Ms. Youngs school. By immediately stating

that Jonathan could not be educated or benefit from education is wrong. We can also argue that

the school did not fulfill their requirement(s) to fully ensure that Jonathan could not benefit

regular education.
ARTIFACT #4 6

In summary, due to not all of the particulars being disclosed and in fairness. I have to side

in favor of the student. In multiple instances, it is the responsibility and burden on the school to

provide an education. As well as a burden of proof that a student would benefit from other means

of education. Since we do not have the information on if an IEP was established, I have to

assume one was never created. Therefore, resulting in the education being given to Jonathan

under FAPE. Regardless of his disability, or the severity of same he is entitled to the same

education as any other student. Be as it normal or special education, it is the responsibility of the

school and its faculty to provide said education.

ARTIFACT #4 7

References

Circuit, F. (1989). 875 F2d 954 Timothy v. Rochester New Hampshire school district.

F2d (875), 954. Retrieved from http://openjurist.org/875/f2d/954/timothy-v-rochester-new-

hampshire-school-district

21, W. N. 09. FindLaws United States eighth circuit case and opinions. Retrieved

November 8, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1200445.html

14 F.3d 1398. (1994, January 24). Retrieved November 8, 2016, from

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/014/14.F3d.1398.92-15608.html