Artifact #5: Special Education

1
Artifact #5
Special Education
Cody Wilcox
11/14/15
EDU 210 1001

In this hypothetical situation, the parents Jonathan, a mentally disabled student with
spastic quadriplegia and a seizure disorder, approached Ms. Debbie Young, the principal at
Jonathans high school as well as a former special education teacher, for a specially trained nurse
to care for their son throughout the day. Ms. Young refused the familys request, believing that
the school is not the proper institution for Jonathan and that the expense would be too great. This
paper will examine whether Ms. Youngs decision was in accordance with special education law.
Unfortunately for Jonathans parents there are a history of cases that lend support to Ms.
Debbie Youngs decision. In the case of Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School
District v. Rowley, the parents of Amy Rowley, a death student filed action against their
daughters school district for not providing the best possible education for young Amy. In Amys
initial year in school she was given a hearing aid that would amplify what her teacher and
classmates said. The next year, on the cusp of the first grade, Amys parents requested a sign
language interpreter be provided alongside the tutor for the death and the speech therapist their
daughter would be meeting with throughout the school year. The school rejected their request

Artifact #5: Special Education

and the Supreme Court sided with the board of education, stating that schools do not need to
deliver the best education for special needs students, only one that had reasonably calculated
education benefit to the child.
Another case that sides with Ms. Debbie Young is that of J.P. ex rel. Popson v. West
Clark Community. In this case the family of J.P. sought a specific program for their child called
ABA/Discret Trial Training (DTT). J.P. was a student with autism and speech apraxia, meaning
that J.P. landed somewhere in a range of neurological disorders. The school disagreed with the
Popson family, claiming that a variety of teaching and care methods were the best way to deliver
an education to J. The Popson family filed suit against the school district, challenging the
services West Clark Community would provide. However, the court held with the school district,
deciding that the family did not prove that the ABA/DTT method was the only reasonable
program to confer an education benefit to their child.
However, there are cases known to side with the special needs child when fighting the
school district for proper care. In the case of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, Amber
Tatro was an 8-year-old girl with an extreme disability called spina bifida. Ambers condition
required special care, a Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC), during school hours.
Unfortunately, young Ambers IEP did not provide for staff to administer her CIC services.
Amber needed the CIC services to attend her special needs class. As a result of this conflict the
family filed suit against the school district. The court ultimately decided in favor of the family,

Artifact #5: Special Education

concluding that necessary service throughout the day fell under the EHA (the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975).
Yet another such case in favor of Jonathans cause is that of Cedar Rapids Independent
School District v. Garrett F., in which the family of a quadriplegic student filed suit against their
childs school district when the school refused to provide the necessary, continuous one-on-one
nursing care that Garret required to attend class. The school refused to provide the nursing and in
response the parents sought a due process hearing that was their right under the IDEA (the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). The courts sided with the family, concluding that
the care was a related services and not a medical service that would be excluded from the
districts responsibility.
In the hypothetical case of Jonathan and the principal of his school, Ms. Debbie Young,
the court is likely to side with the special needs student. Under the IDEA students who have been
identified and diagnosed with a condition that has an impact on their education, such as
Jonathans mental disability, spastic quadriplegia, and seizure disorder, are guaranteed a free and
appropriate education. Ms. Young cannot refuse care to Jonathan merely to avoid the cost just as
the districts in the cases of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro and Cedar Rapids
Independent School District v. Garrett F. could not refuse care to Amber and Garrett. Jonathans
parents should pursue procedural due process, as is their right, and file suit if need be.

Artifact #5: Special Education

Works cited:
Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Amy Rowley (458 U. S. 176) Caselaw - Wrightslaw.com. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2015, from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2015, from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_Cedar_Rapids_SupCt_990303.htm

IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner v. Henri TATRO, et ux., individually

and as next Friend of Amber Tatro, a minor. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2015, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/468/883

J.P. EX REL. POPSON v. WEST CLARK COMMUNITY SCHOOL. (n.d.). Retrieved

November 14, 2015, from http://www.leagle.com/decision/20021140230FSupp2d910_11055/J.P.
EX REL. POPSON v. WEST CLARK COMMUNITY SCHOOL