Running head: Artifact 4 Student Disabilities 1

Artifact 4 Student Disabilities

Evelyn Hernandez

College of Southern Nevada

Artifact 4 Student Disabilities 2

Jonathan is a tenth-grade student who suffers multiple disabilities such as seizure

disorders, spastic quadriplegia, and is also found profoundly mentally disabled. Jonathan’s

parents affront high school principal, Debbie Young, who has previously served as a special

education teacher and an assistant principal in a gradual affluent school district in the South.

Young declines the parents petition due to expensive costs and with a perspective that the school

is not the best location for Jonathan.

When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was established, this unique

legislation not only ensured special services to children with disabilities a better education, but

also granted certain procedural safeguards to those individuals and their parents. If a state is

given funds, then as the Act requires doing so, the state must provide certain procedures and

practices to the individual’s education. Under IDEA, Section 504 states children have the right to

a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) which is defined as an “educational program that is

individualized to a specific child, designed to meet that child's unique needs, provides access to

the general curriculum, meets the grade-level standards established by the state, and from which

the child receives educational benefit.” The placement of handicapped children in regular

classrooms “to the maximum extent appropriate” can also be referred to as placement in Least

Restrictive Environment (LRE). This Act entitles each handicapped individual to an evaluation

were all areas related to the suspected disability and their own unique needs are analyzed. Any

consideration whether the child should be educated in a regular classroom environment full-time,

part-time, or none of the time depends on the child’s needs and abilities. In the case of Jonathan,

school principal, Debbie Young had legitimate reason to suggest to Jonathans parents a more

appropriate school for their son due to the severely of his disabilities.
Artifact 4 Student Disabilities 3

In 1989, the case of Timothy v Rochester New Hampshire School District was taken to

U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals for refusing to provide Timothy with educational services.

Timothy, who suffered from many complex developmental disabilities such as, spastic

quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, and cortical blindness, was under debate whether his disability

qualified him to be “educationally handicapped.” Under the IDEA and the corresponding state

statutes. Which meant that this would have entitled him to special education and related services.

When the school board held a meeting to determine his educational condition, school board

officials decided that Timothy was not “educationally handicapped,” because the severity and

complexity of his disabilities prevented him from being “capable of benefitting” from special-

education services. Accordingly, the board refused to provide educational services to Timothy.

Since the board had violated several laws in Timothy’s education procedure, Timothy’s

representatives filed suit in the Federal District Court arguing that the board had violated a

number of laws, under IDEA, as well as the equal protection and due process clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment. The court upheld the board’s decision concluding that the board was not

obligated to provide Timothy with special-education services, because he was not “capable of

benefitting” from such services. However, soon after, the case was argued before the First

Circuit Court of Appeals. The court stated that any children with qualifying disabilities,

especially those with severe disabilities such as Timothy, are entitled to special education and

related services. The court concluded that the fact that children may appear to be “uneducable”

does not bar them from the protections of the IDEA. Ruling in the favor of Timothy, just like

Jonathan and other disabled children, they are under the IDEA law which protects them and aids

them with educational services. It is a violation to prevent any disabled child from education or

any related services.

Artifact 4 Student Disabilities 4

A similar case to Jonathan’s was argued in Iowa (Cedar Rapids v Garret) in 1998 when

Garret, a tenth-grade student in Cedar Rapids Community School District was refused to be

provided with a “qualified nurse or other qualified person” to assist him with his disability.

When Garret was about four years old, he suffered a severely motorcycle accident that left him

to be paralyzed from the neck down, requiring him to depend upon a ventilator. Even though the

accident did not affect his mental capacities, Garret required of a licensed nursing aid to assist

him during school hours. After the school district refused to provide Garret with a qualified

licensed professional due to financial burden, Garret’s mother requested a hearing under the

IDEA law before the Iowa Department of Education. The Administrative Law Judge in Iowa

ruled in favor of Garret stating that the “federal law requires that children with a variety of health

impairments be provided with ‘special education and related services.’” However, the District

challenged the judge’s decision taking this case to the Federal District Court where once again,

the Court was in favor of providing Garret with services needed to cooperate with his education.

Concluding, that the IDEA law is to provide disabled children with a free appropriate education

which also include “related services.” Same procedural safeguards support Jonathan’s case. The

law under IDEA is to provide disabled individuals with not only a free appropriate public

education, but to provide certain services needed to further assist in their educational process.

In the case of Unified School District v Holland, the school district as well as the parents

of Rachel Holland request for the court’s decision in placing Rachel in the best educational

placement possible to be able to receive educational services. Rachel is an eleven-year-old girl

who is found to be mentally retarded with an I.Q of a four-year-old. However, she loves school,

and is proved to show better results when she is placed in regular education classes. Rachel’s

parents fight to keep her attending regular classes since she shows better progress when she
Artifact 4 Student Disabilities 5

attends a regular classroom. However, the school districts contradict the parents input and

continues to place Rachel in special education classes stating, “her disability was far too severe

for her to gain anything from being in a general education class.” They concluded that she had to

be in special education classes for academic subjects but could be in general classes for

nonacademic activities. When the Sacramento school appealed the decision to the district court,

the district court decided that the appropriate placement for Rachel was in general education

classes with an aid and special services. The school district appealed the ruling to the Ninth

Circuit, the hearing was on August 12, 1993. However, the court stood with the official ruling of

the district court. The school district filed for a petition to have the U.S. Supreme Court review

this case, but it was denied. Similar to Jonathan’s case, if the parents of the disabled child inputs

that their child be placed in a better more appropriate environment to further assist in the

individual’s education, under IDEA law, they have the right to FAPE.

When Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was established, it was made with the

purpose of assisting those with disabilities and with severe disabilities with a better education.

Students with disabilities have the right to require of an assistant to service them during school

hours if they need too. They also have the right to be placed in a least restrictive environment

when possible. Debbie Young was not protected under any law to determine if the school was or

wasn’t the most appropriate for Jonathan. Since the state also receives federal funds, the district

has the obligation to finance any nursing services to assist its students to further enhance their

educational process.
Artifact 4 Student Disabilities 6

References

"A COMPARISON of ADA, IDEA, and Section 504." Disability Rights Education and Defense

Fund | A COMPARISON of ADA, IDEA, and Section 504. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

"BD. OF EDUC., SACRAMENTO CITY SCHOOL D. v. HOLLAND | 786 F.Supp. 874

(1992)." Leagle. United States District Court, E.D. California., 02 Mar. 1992. Web. 10

Apr. 2017.

"Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F." Cedar Rapids Community School

District v. Garret F. Wrights Law, 15 Jan. 2007. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

"IDEA - Building The Legacy of IDEA 2004." IDEA - Building The Legacy of IDEA 2004. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

Steketee, Amy M. "Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District." Encyclopædia

Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 14 Aug. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

Artifact 4 Student Disabilities 7