Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Running head: ARTIFACT #5 Debbie Young V.


Debbie Young v. Board of Education

Artifact #5
Mariah Connor
EDU 210
February 26, 2016
In this artifact we discover Debbie Young a seasoned high school principal.

She works down in the south and has served as a special education teacher and an

assistant principal. Debbie meets parents of She of a severely disabled tenth grade

student, Johnathan. The parents are requesting that a full time nurse be provided

under the label of "related services". Johnathan sadly has multiple disabilities

requiring constant care. Johnathon is mentally disabled he has spastic quadriplegia,

and has a seizure disorder. Debbie refuses the parents' request due to expense and

an opinion that the school is not the most appropriate placement for Johnathan.

Debbie youngs decision is not defensible. For example, in case Cedar Rapids

Independent School District v. Garret F. (1999), a quadriplegic student required

continuous one on one nursing services. The parents provided nursing services at

school until the student hit the 5th grade. Then the parents demanded that the

school pay for it. After an administrative law the judge ruled that the school district

was required to provide the services under the IDEA as a related service. If this

school can pay for the continuous care of a quadriplegic then, Debbie Young can

find a school for Johnathon and take care of the continuous care under the IDEA

related services.

Another example in the case of Stratham School v. Beth and David p. (2003).

There was a question regarding whether if the school district should pay for the

mapping of a students cochlear implant and for the transportation of the student

and his parents to the specialty doing the mapping and customization of the

implant. The court did find that it was necessary to improve the students ability to

communicate. So if Johnathon is able to attend school in this district then it would

benefit him.
On the other hand, Debbie Young made a great decision by not letting the

severely disabled student attend the school in the district. In case, LT v. Warwick

school committee (2004) the district offered a self-contained classroom that used a

modified version of educational techniques. But the parents rejected this offer. The

first Circuit Court of Appeals found an autistic student wasnt entitled to the

particular program preferred by the parent. The parent stating that the IDEA

doesnt require a public school to provide what is best for a special needs child, only

that it provide an IEP that is reasonably calculate to provide an appropriate

education as define in federal and state law.

Another example as to why Debbie made the right decision is in the case

Dale M v. Board of Educ. Of Bradley Bourbonnals high school (2001).This was a

therapeutic school. The student was basically jailed and then released. His parent

ended up seeking reimbursement alleging that only a residential placement was

appropriate. But the seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that residential

placement was not educationally necessary, only custodial. So having to take care

of this disabled student is not educational, it is custodial.

Despite her decision she is probably hasnt made a defensible decision. You

cant let someone be refused an education based on their disabilities. The IEP

should state that the student needs a nurse under related services. Johnathon

should be given a right to education just as everyone else despite his disability.

Ultimately I believe the court will rule in favor for the parents. Citing the case law

Cedar Rapids Community District v. Garret F. in which the school district refused to

provide nursing care personnel to a severely disabled student. The U.S. Supreme

Court upheld the decision of an administrative law judge requiring the district to
provide the needed service and bear the financial responsibility per IDEA. I believe

every child deserves an education.


Dale M v. Board of Educ. Of Bradley Bourbonnias High School 237 F.3d 813

(7th Cir. 2001)

LT. v. Warwick School Committee 361 F.3d 80 (1 st Cir. 2004)

School District v. Garret F. 526 U.S. 66 (1999)

Statham School v. Beth and David P. 2003 WL 260728 (D.NH. 2003)