ARTIFACT #5 Special Education

Artifact #5
Special Education
Angel Gutierrez
College of Southern Nevada
17th of April 2015
ARTIFACT #5 Special Education

Debbie Young is a high school principle and served as a special education teacher

in a progressive school district that is located in the South. Parents of a severely disabled

student approach Debbie and explain to her that their son Johnathon, who would be a

tenth grader at the time, needs constant care by a specialized nurse due to the extremity of

his disabilities. Johnathon has several disabilities he is mentally disabled, suffers from

seizures and has spastic quadriplegia. The parents wanted to ensure that due to his

disabilities he would be provided care with a specialized nurse. Debbie Young however,

tells the parents that she must refuse the request because of the expense cost and states

that the school in not the most appropriate place for their son. The question to be asked

her is if Debbie Youngs decision is defensible. In the next few paragraphs I will explain

how Debbie Young was in the wrong for her actions.

Debbie Young stated that the school would not be an appropriate place for

Johnathon to attend. She had no right to say that. Under the protection of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), this statutes that Johnathon has the

right to receive services and education. As noted in School Law for Teachers, Perhaps

the most fundamental and important principle if IDEA is that all children ages 3 to 21

years with disabilities, regardless of nature or severity of their disabilities must have

available to them a free and appropriate education and related services designed to meet

their unique needs. (pg. 143). Debbie Young had no right to tell the parents of Johnathon

that the school would not be the most appropriate place. The school must follow the

IDEA act and ensure that they address the rights of the students. To decide whether the

school was an appropriate place for Johnathon was out of her jurisdiction. Instead Debbie
ARTIFACT #5 Special Education

Young should have ensured that there were available services to meet the needs of

Johnathon.

As noted above, Debbie Young stated to the parents of Johnathon that the school

would not be appropriate for Johnathon. Debbie Young was not in the right to make this

decision. She should have given the student the right to be first evaluated using the two

prong test. The two prong test used to determine whether school districts have met their

obligation to provide a free and appropriate education.(pg. 143). Debbie Young did not

do this. Instead she took the parents information and made a decision on her own. This

proves that Debbie Young did not meet the requirements of providing a free and

appropriate education.

The last information I will use to prove that Debbie Young was not in the right is

the requirements under the IEP. IDEA requires that an individualized education program

(IEP) be prepared for each child who is to receive special education services. The IEP is a

written document that provides the plan for implementation of the special education

program and any related services to eligible students. (pg. 147). Debbie Young did not

set a plan to help meet the needs of Johnathon. Instead she told the parents that the

special services that Johnathon may need would not be met due to the funds required to

meet his needs for a specialist. Under the requirements of the IDEA, must include

parents, the students teacher(special education and regular education), special education

specialists, others who may contribute to the individually tailored learn plan and when

appropriate the student as well. (pg. 147). As you can see it clearly states that the

program must include special education specialist, Debbie stated that they could not
ARTIFACT #5 Special Education

provide a specialist service due to the required funds not being available. This was

another mistake that Debbie Young made.

Debbie Youngs actions were not defensible. Instead of reviewing the needs of

Johnathon, she made the decision without following IDEA and IEP and instead told

Johnathons parents that the school would not be an appropriate place for Johnathon to

attend. Instead, Johnathons rights were violated because he was not given a proper

evaluation to see if his needs could be met and he was also denied the special education

specialist that his parents requested. Under IDEA, Johnathon had the right to free and

appropriate education. He also had the right to receive specialized services to meet his

disability needs.
ARTIFACT #5 Special Education

References

Underwood, J. & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education.