Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 1

Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate

EDU 210: Artifact 5

Xavier C. Perry

College of Southern Nevada

 Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 2

Abstract

This paper explores the rights of students with disabilities as it pertains to their education, the

responsibilities that the institutions of learning have to provide for those with disabilities and the

guidelines and laws that are placed in order to help determine the necessity of specific services

deemed available and unavailable to students with disabilities. The text will examine four court

cases relevant to the subject matter. The court cases will outline the foundation from which laws,

rules and regulations have been established across the United States to ensure that the

educational needs of those with disabilities are being met while also providing the rights of the

school and the protections that allow for decision making.

 Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 3

Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate

Jonathon is a tenth grader with a multitude of disabilities requiring him to have constant care by

a specially qualified nurse. Jonathon is severely mentally disabled having a spastic quadriplegia

(a subset of spastic cerebral palsy that affects all four limbs) and a severe seizure disorder (a

neurological disorder more commonly known as “epilepsy”). The school he attends is principled

by Debbie Young, a veteran high school principle. Young worked as a special education teacher

and assistant principal in a liberal and progressive school district in the South. The parents of

Jonathon approach Young with regards to his necessity for continuous nursing care while at

school and Young denies their request based on the exceptional cost involved and also her view

that her specific institution isn’t the most suitable arrangement for Jonathon and his needs.

There are many similar cases to Jonathon’s that helped mold laws and guidelines that are the

foundation that determines what services related to the student’s disability may be provided by

the school and those that are the responsibility of the student’s responsible party (parents,

grandparents, guardians ect.). One of those cases is Stratham School v Beth and David P (p 154)

wherein the question of whether or not the school district is financially responsible for the

mapping of a student’s cochlear implant (not for the cost of the cochlear implant itself) and the

cost for transportation for both the student and parents to the specialist as the visits pertain to the

mapping and customization of the implant. The specialist provides the mapping of the implant

using a computer to determine the proper level of electrical current needed to stimulate

electrodes implanted in the ear. The courts determined that for the student to improve his ability

to communicate, the implant was necessary. Additionally, for the implant to work properly, the

mapping and travel expenses were also deemed a necessity. It’s clear in this case and similarly in
 Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 4

the case of Jonathon, the tenth-grade spastic quadriplegia and epileptic that both students’

answers would result affirmatively to the Supreme Courts three part test established to determine

if a school district is responsible for providing a particular service to a student. Both students in

either case have a disability that requires special education under IDEA (Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act). In both cases, it can also be concluded that there is a necessity for

the services in order for the students to prosper from his/her special education. And last, in both

cases, the requested service (s) doesn’t fall within a specific exclusion (example: physician’s

services and individually prescribed equipment). The Supreme Court customized this three part

test because of another comparable case, Irving Independent School District v Tatro. Irving

Independent School District vs Tatro (p 153) involved a student with Spina Bifida (a birth defect

where there is incomplete closing of the backbone and membranes around the spinal cord). This

student required Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC) services in order to attend special

education classes. It was not a part of the students individual education plan (IEP) for school

employees to administer the CIC services. After numerous attempts to appeal to the school in

adhering to CIC services, the parents of the student filed a law suit against the school district

claiming that the school was unwilling to provide CIC services even though they argued that CIC

is considered a “related service” under the Education for all Handicapped Children (s) Act. This

case established the above mention “three part test” by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court

ruled that without the procedure (CIC) being accessible during the school day, the student would

be unable to attend classes and benefit from the special education instruction. The conclusion

made by the courts was that CIC was related to the effort to educate because it was a needed

service that allowed the student to remain in the classroom. In the scenario provided through

artifact 5, the tenth grade student Jonathon has a disability which requires special education
 Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 5

under IDEA. For Jonathon to benefit from his special education, it is necessary he have a

specialized trained nurse. Without this type of nurse available at all times, he wouldn’t be able to

prosper from his special education. And finally, the services that Jonathon’s parents are

requesting don’t fall within a specific exclusion, such as physician’s services or individually

prescribed equipment.

There have also been similar cases wherein the ruling of the court stated that the school districts

weren’t responsible for providing certain services to students with disabilities even though the

students representatives (parents, grandparents, guardians ect) believed they were entitled. An

excellent example of this is the case of LT v Warwick School Committee (p 144-145) wherein

the school district offered a self-contained classroom that used a modified version of the

educational techniques better known as Treatment and Education of Autistic and

Communication-Handicapped Children. The parents of the student were unwelcoming of this

idea and instead wanted a technique called Discrete Trial Training. The court ruled that the

student was not entitled to a specific program preferred by a parent. It concluded that a school

must provide an IEP (Individual Education Plan) that is reasonably calculate’ to provide an

appropriate education as defined by federal and state law although IDEA doesn’t require a public

school to provide what is best for a special needs student. In this case, the courts ruled that the

student was entitled to appropriate education, but wasn’t entitled to the program that his parents

preferred. Although, the parents believed there suggested program to suit the needs of their child

better, under the laws of IDEA, the school wasn’t required to provide that level of education. In

the case of Jonathon, a mentally disabled tenth grader, a principle, Young, denies the services

requested by the parents. She, Young, concludes that the school is not the most appropriate

placement for the student. Young has previously taught special education and been the assistant
 Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 6

principle at a liberal school giving her the experience to be found qualified to make such a

decision. In both situations the school is required to provide appropriate education. Young has

determined that based on the student’s needs, the school is not the appropriate place for Jonathon

to learn. Additionally, IDEA doesn’t require that schools furnish the most services and programs

available at any given time.

In a final case I will present, the courts also found that the school wasn’t responsible for the

reimbursing of a residential placement center that a student was placed in by their parents. In the

case of Dale M. v Board of Education of Bradley Bourbonnais (p 144), a student whom had

become a severe disciplinary problem was placed in a therapeutic day school. After being jailed

and released, his parent then put him in a residential placement and later requested monetary

reimbursement of the cost of the residential placement alleging that residential placement was

the only appropriate measure. The school refused to reimburse the parent and as a result, the

parent sued the school. The court found that the parent wasn’t entitled to reimbursement from the

school because residential placement wasn’t educationally necessary. They upheld the school

districts offer of appropriate services. The outcome of this case was determined by whether the

services that the parent chose to utilize were educationally necessary. The courts believed that

the placement was a custodial only issue. Additionally, the school did attempt to provide

adequate services to meet the student’s educational needs. The school is required to provide an

IEP that is reasonable and provides an appropriate education per the federal and state law.

Though the circumstances in artifact 5 may seem very different from this case, the laws and

concepts are the same. Young, being a qualified individual made the reasonable observation that

her school is not the appropriate place for the student to receive care.
 Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 7

Conclusion

It’s my belief that Principal Debbie Young’s decision in the case of mentally disabled tenth

grader, Jonathon is defensible. Young is a veteran member of the educational system. Her

experience included having been employed as a special education teacher and assistant principal

prior to obtaining her current position as a high school principal. By all means, she has the

experience and educational background to render a qualified decision regarding the matter of

Jonathon. I contend that based on the text court cases, the school nor school district would be

held responsible for that which the parents are requesting. I also believe the courts would rule in

favor of the school and school district based on IDEA, not requiring a public school to provide

what is best for a special need student. Although, it is required that an IEP outline to provide an

appropriate education as defined by state and federal laws. Young knew that her school was

unable to provide appropriate education deeming her school to not be the best choice for

Jonathon’s placement.
 Special Education: Appropriate and Inappropriate 8

References

Underwood, Julie & Webb, L. Dean. (2005).Education of Students With Disabilities.

Stollenwork, Debra A. & Rogers, Elisa, School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications

(pp.144-145). New Jersey: Pearson

Underwood, Julie & Webb, L. Dean. (2005).Education of Students With Disabilities.

Stollenwork, Debra A. & Rogers, Elisa, School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications

(pp.153-154). New Jersey: Pearson

Wikipedia. (2015) Spina Bifida

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida