Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Olivia M. Norman
Every parent wants what is best both socially and academically for their child. However,
what a parent wants and what is best, is not always in line with what is guaranteed legally.
Jonathons parents want him to attend a high school in their district with the accompaniment of
his specialized nurse. The attendance of his nurse is necessary due to his multiple disabilities
including spastic quadriplegia, a seizure disorder, and severe mental disability. Debbie Young is
the principal responsible for approving the request for Jonathon to attend one of the schools,
which she denies. With her background as a special education teacher, Young determined that
the school is not an appropriate place for Jonathon. In addition to the appropriateness of the
placement, Young does not feel that the exorbitant cost placing Jonathon in a school setting is
In Irving v. Tatro, it was determined that some medically needed assistance is considered
related services and are therefore covered under The Education of Handicapped Act (later
changed to IDEA). Tatro was a young girl in need of catheterization throughout the day, and
without the procedure Amber [Tatro] could not attend classes and benefit from special
education (Irving v. Tatro, 1984). Likewise, Jonathon could conceivably attend special
In the case of Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F., the court
referenced the Tatro case when it concluded that the services of a physician (other than for
diagnostic and evaluation purposes) are subject to the medical services exclusion, but services
that can be provided in the school setting by a nurse or qualified layperson are not (Cedar
Rapids v. Garrett F., 1999). Garrett was a quadriplegic who was able to retain information and
flourish in school, but needed someone nearby able to attend to his needs due to being dependent
Artifact #5 3
upon a ventilator. Jonathons parents have a strong case referencing both of these decisions in
There really is no question that Jonathons parents are entitled to a due process hearing if
they believe that their son is not being offered an adequate education opportunity. However,
The burden of proof in challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief
(Schaffer v. Weast, 2005). Brian Schaffers parents sued for reimbursement and legal fees after
sending their son to a private school because they felt that the public school was not providing an
adequate education. The court, however, in this case determined that while they were entitled to
question the schools decision, the burden of proof lies directly on them. Jonathons parents
would also need to prove that the school was not offering the most appropriate education by not
allowing him to attend school. Furthermore, they would need to prove that Ms. Young was
incorrect, even with her extensive experience in the field. This could prove to be quite difficult
following the case of Beth B. v. Clay where The Seveth Circuit deferred to the knowledge of the
school saying, the school officials decision about how to best educate Beth is based on
expertise that we cannot match (quoted from Underwood & Webb, 2006). While Jonathons
parents may know him best personally, they do not necessarily know better than Ms. Young as to
Even though a student with disabilities is guaranteed a free and appropriate education,
they are not guaranteed the best education. For that matter, students without disabilities are also
not guaranteed the best education. LT v. Warwick School Committee determined that even though
LTs family desired a specific program for their child, LT was not entitled to that specific
education at a greater cost, so long as the school was providing an education that it deemed
appropriate. The appeals courts referred to the Rowley case stating IDEA does not require a
Artifact #5 4
public school to provide what is best for a special needs child, only that it provide an IEP that is
reasonably calculated to provide an appropriate education as defined in federal and state law
(LT v. Warwick School, 2004). It is understandable that Jonathons parents want the best and
most inclusive education for their son, but Ms. Young, who is very knowledgeable in matters of
special education, is best suited to weigh the appropriateness and cost of education for Jonathon
against what the parents wish for and think is best for him.
From the first time I read the case regarding Jonathon, I wanted more information. It is
unclear if Jonathon would be able to actually make growth in a school setting. If he is indeed
able to make educational growth in a school setting, such as Garrett F., then his parents
absolutely have a chance of pushing for him to be placed in a school. However, if he is unable to
make growth, Ms. Young is qualified to make a determination as to the most appropriate setting
References
Cedar Rapids v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.
com/law/caselaw/case_Cedar_Rapids_SupCt_990303.htm.
Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro, 468 US 883 - Supreme Court (1984). Retrieved from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.tatro.htm
LT. TB ex rel. NB v. Warwick School Com., 361 F. 3d 80 - Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit (2004).
34366&q=lt+v.+warwick+school+court+case&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29.
.com/scholar_case?case=17345534621187318493&q=Schaffer+v.+Weast&hl=en&as_sd
t=6,29&as_vis=1.
Underwood, J., Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper