Running Head: ASSIGNMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 1

Special Education: Related Services Requirements

Kelli N. Robinson

November 18, 2017

Portfolio Assignment #5

EDU 210 Nevada School Law

Dr. Celia Isbell

ASSIGNMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 2

A young man with severe disabilities is presented a high school administrator to be

considered for placement in the school. His disabilities require a full-time nurse and limit

both his physical and mental abilities. The administrator feels his condition is too severe and

the school cannot provide for the services needed to provide him an education. The school

denies him admission citing the overwhelming challenges of his condition. Under the IDEA

Act, clarified by numerous court cases, we are to determine if this decision is supported by

precedence.

The first case that supports the administrator’s decision to deny schooling for the boy is

Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley (n.d). This case involved a deaf student in

elementary school. The school provided regular tutoring and accommodations services for her

condition but the parents insisted she have a full-time sign language interpreter in every class.

The school deemed her performance equal to or above that of hearing students and ruled against

the need for the interpreter. The parents filed a hearing and the case was taken to the Supreme

Court. This cased defined what it means to be required to provide a free and appropriate public

education for disabled children. They ruled that this statement does not mean the best education

but one meeting the basic needs comparable to their fellow students. In the above scenario, it

could be argued the school cannot provide an education for the severely disabled boy which will

meet the standard set by the courts. The premise of the case sets certain limitations on school

provided services to accommodate disabilities. This could support the administrator’s decision to

not enroll the boy in our scenario.

The second case that supports the administrator’s decision to deny schooling for the boy

is LT v. Warwick School Committee (n.d). A new family in the school district had an autistic son

and contacted the school for the available services for his education. The school provided two
ASSIGNMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 3

Individual Education Plans for their son but both were rejected by the parents. They insisted on a

specific theology of teaching autistic children for their son. They decided to go through a private

school which used those techniques and sued the district for reimbursement. The US Court of

Appeals found that the school made a good faith effort to provide for the child and was under no

obligation to provide services demanded by the parents because the effectiveness of the other

techniques were not known to be effective or ineffective for their son. In our current scenario, the

school feels that their resources available cannot provide an adequate support for the disabled

boy and forcing the needed accommodations would be an undue burden. This case supports the

school in our scenario by recognizing that schools have limitations on what they can provide for

disabled students and parents cannot dictate when and how they are overcome.

The first court case which supports the boy’s right to receive a public education is Irving

Independent School District v. Tatro (n.d). A young disabled girl had a condition that required

frequent clean intermittent catheterization. The school refused to provide this for the girl under

the related services clause. The Supreme Court found the school must provide this service. They

found that it was defined under the related services clause of the IDEA act and was needed to

provide legal public education for this girl. In the current scenario, the administrator would be

wrong to deny the services needed to accommodate the disabled boy under the related services

definition in the IDEA Act. This case would support the parents in requesting services be

provided for their son so he can receive public education as defined by the law.

The second case which supports the boy’s right to receive a public education is Cedar

Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (n.d). Garret was a student who required a

ventilator to sustain life. His family provided everyday support in the school for the first part of

his life but requested the school to provide those services as time went on. The school refused
ASSIGNMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 4

citing the burden to provide a nurse for one student. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the

parents and Garret. They stated that schools are responsible to provide related services to

disabled students under federal acts and that his condition warranted such services. This directly

relates to our current scenario. The boy in the scenario needs a full-time nurse for his severe

conditions to be able to receive public education. This was the same for Garret. The courts found

the school responsible to provide those services in Garrets case which relates very closely to the

scenario given in the paper. This would support the parents desire to have their boy attend

school.

I believe that the courts will rule against the administrator’s decision to deny the boy

public education in the school. The courts have established the definition of related services as

defined by the IDEA Act to include most physical accommodations, including a full-time nurse

to support disabled children. In Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F (n.d), the

courts specifically required a nurse to be provided to accommodate a disabled child. In Irving

Independent School District v. Tatro (n.d), the courts required the school to provide medical

services to support a young girl’s need for a daily procedure. The courts have been clear that,

with the exception of surgical implants, schools must provide related medical services to

accommodate disabled children so they may receive their legally protected right to a free and

appropriate public education.

ASSIGNMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 5

References

Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1002

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., No. 96-1793 (n.d.) Retrieved November
18, 2017. http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.garret.htm

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, No. 83-558 (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2017.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/468/883.html

LT v. Warwick School Committee. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 7, 2017.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1241530.html