Running head: ARTIFACT 4 1

Special Education

Jeffery Urbina

College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT 4 2

Abstract

Special education students have a hard time at school, that time can be made harder if

they are not provided with the resources they need to even be able to function properly. However

not all school are prepared to handle certain cases and services. In the case of principal Debbie

Young and tenth grade student Jonathan and his parents these are the concerns both parties have.

Can a school or school board deny certain students services on the fact that they believe the

school is not the best place to receive services? Looking at similar cases and laws that have been

established we can have an idea on the what side a judge might lean towards.
ARTIFACT 4 3

Introduction

Principal Debbie Young a seasoned teacher with experience working as a special

education teacher was approached by the parents of Jonathan a tenth grade student that suffers

with multiple disabilities requiring constant care by a specially trained nurse. He is profoundly

mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Principal Young refuses

the request of parents because she says it will be to expensive and that the school is not a good

choice for Jonathan to receive services from.

Students have many educational laws protecting their rights such as FAPE, LRE, and

IDEA. FAPE is Free Appropriate Public Education to all children in the United States. LRE

protects a student who has a disability to have the opportunity to be educated with non-disabled

peers. IDEA ensures students with a disability are provided with Free Appropriate Public

education. These laws will play a huge role in the case between Debbie and the parents of

Jonathan.

A similar case in favor of the parents of Jonathan is the case between Ceder Rapids

community school Dist. V. Garret F. The case focused on student Garret F. During the school day

he needed a personal attendant to see to his health care needs. his mother asked that the school

board supply the needed nursing services. The board, however, refused. The District Court chose

to side with Garret F. Due to the Education Act (IDEA) required the school district to provide

"school health services," ( Oyez.org). Very similar to the case between Jonathan parents and

principal Young. Comparing these to cases I can see a judge leaning towards The side of

Jonathan’s parents.

Another case very similar is the case between Timothy v. Rochester. The case was

focused on Timothy W. who was a multiply handicapped and profoundly intellectually disabled
ARTIFACT 4 4

child. Pediatricians reported that Timothy had no educational potential. the board refused to

provide educational services to Timothy. Courts explained that the fact that children may appear

to be “uneducable” does not bar them from the protections and a new policy was adopted known

as the Zero Reject policy which keeps any type of student from being rejected ( Britannica.com).

Thus principal Young can not refuse Jonathan’s entry to the school.

A case in favor of principal Young is the case between Hendrick Hudson v Rowley. In

this case Furnace Woods School refused to provide deaf student Amy Rowley with a sign

language interpreter. Amy’s parents sued the school. The Supreme Court held that the Act does

not require a school to provide a sign language interpreter if it is not needed. School

administrations are allowed to determine what is required to meet a handicapped students

individual needs (Britannica.com). Principal Young can make a decision if she feels the personal

nurse is not required for Jonathan’s education.

Another case in favor of principal Young is unified school Dist. V. Holland in this case

Rachel H., a young girl with an intellectual disability and her parents were trying to get her to be

a part of a normal classroom with non disabled kids. She was denied access to the general

education classroom placement. The courts sided with Rachel however they established the four

factors. Number four of the factors is cost of mainstreaming (Sites. Google.com). Principal

Young has an argument to be made that the cost of a personal nurse can be to costly.

Ultimately I believe the courts will side with Jonathan’s family due to the fact that his

disabilities are very serious and he will need a nurse to get through the school day. Principal

Young can not deny him the services due to the fact that a service can only be denied if the

administration feels it’s not needed. In addition Jonathan is also protected by the Zero Reject
ARTIFACT 4 5

policy and the IDEA law. The laws and similar cases principal Young can not be defended in her

decision.
ARTIFACT 4 6

References

https://sites.google.com/site/jessalynsimmsfinal/influential-court-cases/sacramento-city-unified-

school-district-vs-rachel-h

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Board-of-Education-of-the-Hendrick-Hudson-Central-School-

District-v-Rowley

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Timothy-W-v-Rochester-New-Hampshire-School-

District

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/96-1793