RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #5 IDEA 1

Artifact # 5

IDEA Students and School’s Responsibilities

Genevieve Weems

College of Southern Nevada

November 17, 2017

Artifact #5 IDEA 2

Debbie Young is a high school principal, with a background in special education, and

worked as an assistant principal in a progressive southern school. She was approached by the

parents of a severely disabled tenth-grade student. They want their son, Johnathan, to attend one

of the schools in this district. Johnathan is profoundly mentally disabled, has spastic

quadriplegia, and a seizure disorder, requiring a specially trained nurse to be with him at all

times. Young refuses the parents’ request due to extraordinary expense and a view that the

school is not the best placement for their son. Is this decision defensible?

In JL v. Mercer Island School District, Parents claimed that the district failed to provide

K.L. with a free appropriate public education. The district court found that under the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act amendment, K.L. was in fact denied this education. Thus, the

school district was required to provide this education. As in this case, the principal would be

denying the boy a free public education. If the parents pressed forward with this and got an

attorney, it is possible that the judge would require the school district to accept Johnathan.

In the case of Henrico County v. Z.P., Z.P. is a young boy with autism who was given an

individualized education plan. His parents believed the plan to be inadequate and thus rejected it.

His parents them moved him to private schooling, but wanted the school district to pay for the

schooling. After making it to the court of appeals, the court ruled in the parents’ favor, making

the school district pay for Z.P.’s private education. Meaning, if the parents decided to put their

son in private school, the school district might be able to pay for such a situation. Making the

district still responsible for their son’s education.

In a similar case, Endrew v. Douglas County School District, the school did make an IEP

for the child in question. This IEP did not meet the standards of the parents. So the Parents

moved their son into private school, and tried to have the school district pay for his education.
Artifact #5 IDEA 3

However, because the school offered the plan they were covered, and were not responsible for

the parents’ decision in moving their child. While this isn’t directly related to the case in

question, as the child is not yet in the school, it can be said that if the school district had an

adequate reason for not accepting the child, the parents may not be able to claim the school is

responsible for their child’s education. Considering Young has worked in the district for a long

time, and is knowledgeable in the special education program, she would know if the school

district is equipped enough to best care for Johnathan.

The case that started the more modern standards for IEPs was Rowley V. The board of

Education. In this case Rowley was a deaf student whose school refused to provide a sign

language interpreter. The school was providing and adequate education in every other way. The

court decided that the school did not need to provide this interpreter for the student. Young must

believe that the school would not be able to provide an adequate education for the student, even

if the student provided their own nurse. If the school also had to provide a nurse, it would

become too costly for the school to maintain a proper education for Johnathan.

In the end I believe the Young’s opinion is defensible. She has worked in the school

district for a long enough time, and with special education long enough, to know what the school

district can provide for Johnathan. The parents should be looking for a proper education for their

son. They approached Young asking if the district would be an appropriate fit for their child, and

Young said it would not be. The parents should respect this and look for another district, or a

private school, better equip to give their son a proper education.

Artifact #5 IDEA 4

References

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE HENDRICK HUDSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,

WESTCHESTER COUNTY, et al., Petitioners v. AMY ROWLEY, by her parents,
ROWLEY et al., Wrightslaw (June 28, 1982).
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v. Z. P., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS; R.
P.; DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS., Wrightslaw (The United State Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit February 11, 2005).
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/05/4th.henrico.va.zp.htm

ENDREW F., a minor, by and through his parents and next friends, JOSEPH F. and Jennifer F.,
Petitioner v. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1., Google Scholar (March
22, 2017).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6037825813385891567&hl=en&as_sdt=5,
29&sciodt=3,29

J.L.; M.L.; K.L., their minor daughter, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MERCER ISLAND SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a municipal Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellant., Google scholar
(United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 6, 2009).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17101510998983146212&hl=en&as_sdt=
5,29&sciodt=3,29