Running head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT 5 1

Portfolio Artifact # 5

Yesica Diaz

CSN EDU 210

May 5, 2017
Portfolio Artifact 5 2

Portfolio Artifact 5

Debbie Young is a high school principal with a lot of experience. She has taught special

education and also has experience being an assistant principal in a school located in the South.

The parents of Jonathan, who is a severely disabled tenth grade student, approach Debbie to have

their son enrolled in one of the schools in the district. Jonathan requires constant care by a nurse

due to his multiple disabilities and is also mentally disabled. His multiple disabilities include a

seizure disorder and quadriplegia. Debbie Young does not grant Jonathans parents their request

to have their son enrolled. The reason for Ms. Youngs decision is that accepting Jonathan would

cause great expenses and Ms. Young also expresses her view that she doesnt believe that a

school setting is the best option for Jonathan.

The first side of this scenario we face is the side of Ms. Debbie Young. She has extensive

experience in the field of education and one could argue that she made an educated decision.

However would the courts argue for or against her decision? To meet its substantive obligation

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a school must offer an "individualized

education program" reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light

of the child's circumstances. Debbie Young can argue that according to the Dale M. v. Board of

Bradley Bourbonnais High School a school can decide if something is educationally necessary.

In this particular case an issue of discipline was involved but the link between this case and ours

is the parent involvement. In the Dale M. v. Board of Bradley Bourbonnais High School the

parents sought reimbursement for the placement of their child saying only a residential

placement was appropriate. In this case the school was allowed the permission to choose what

services were and werent appropriate, just as Ms. Debbie Young choose.
Portfolio Artifact 5 3

Another case that strongly backs up Ms. Debbie Youngs decision is the case of

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools. This case found that a student can be served outside of the

neighborhood school or schools if another school offered the program the student needed.

Debbie Young could argue that her school district can offer Jonathan the type of program he

needs but that another school district can. A very similar case of Beth B v. Clay involved a

decision that said that despite the objections of a students parents to have what they believed

was the best IEP decisions, a schools knowledge can be defended. The court said that the school

officials choice about how to best educate the student was based on expertise that they could not

match.

Now for the defense on the students side, also involving Jonathans parents choices.

Jonathans parent have many cases that they can reference in the aide of representing their childs

rights. One major landmark Law they can reference is the IDEA Act. This act states that

regardless of the nature or severity of a students disabilities he/she must have available to them

a free and appropriate education and related services designed to meet their unique needs. A

related services case that these parents can reference is that of Irving Independent School District

v. Tatro. This particular case is very similar to the case of these parents. This case ruled that

without the services of a specific procedure the student could not attend classes and benefit from

special education instruction. While Ms. Debbie Young could argue that the cost to her school

would be astronomical, Jonathans parents could argue that the school is required to provide him

the services he needs. Not only does the similar case above side with these parents but so does

the three part test devised to determine whether a school district is required to provide a

particular service to a student as a related service.

Portfolio Artifact 5 4

The third point in that test basically says that the students service must not fall within a

specific exclusion such as physicians services or individually perspired equipment. Jonathan

requires a nurse and not a physician and therefore the school is required to provide him this

service. The Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. involved a severely

physically disabled student. In that case involved the issue of whether the continuous nursing

care needed by a quadriplegic student during school, counted as a related service that the school

needed to pay for. The court ruled in favor of the student and it a case that closely resembles that

of Jonathan. Both students can be said to depend on the service in order to meet their IEP

educational needs, however low they may seem.

In conclusion I can say that Debbie Youngs decision is defensible but not as strongly as

the student and his parents. I have to side with the student ton this one. The court case of Cedar

Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F really solidifies my decision. If a student needs

a service to be able achieve his/her IEP goals than the school is responsible by law to provide it

to them. In this case one on one nursing services are required and under the IDEA act the parents

can be granted summary judgement on the grounds that the services are related services rather

than excluded medical services.

Portfolio Artifact 5 5

References

Dale M. v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF BRADLEY-BOURBANNAIS, 29 F. Supp. 2d 925 (C.D. Ill. 1998).

(n.d.). Retrieved May 07, 2017, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-
courts/FSupp2/29/925/2472055/

FindLaw's United States Sixth Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved May 07, 2017, from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1253429.html

FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved May 07, 2017, from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1250134.html

IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner v. Henri TATRO, et ux., individually and as
next Friend of Amber Tatro, a minor. (n.d.). Retrieved May 07, 2017, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/468/883

(n.d.). Retrieved May 07, 2017, from

http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_Cedar_Rapids_SupCt_990303.htm