Artifact #4 Special Education 1

Artifact #4

Special Education
Rayana Wilder

Professor Herrington

EDU 210- 1005

27 April 2019
Artifact #4 Special Education 1

A high school principal, named Debbie Young, used to be a special education teacher and

an assistant principal at another school. Parents of a gravely disabled sophomore student, named

Jonathan, came to see Young about enrolling their child into the school district. Jonathan has

multiple issues such as spastic quadriplegia, a seizure disorder, and being mentally disabled.

With all of this going on, Jonathan has to have a nurse care for him regularly. Due to financial

expenses and the school not being a suitable place for Jonathan, Young denies the parents

request of enrolling their child.

Debbie can argue that if the school doesn’t have what the students in order to be

successful then she shouldn’t have to enroll the child. She wouldn’t want to be to blame if

something happens to the student or if Jonathan can’t get what he needs for care and academia.

The student should be where he could strive and have the proper care that can be paid for. Since

she used to be a special education teacher she knows what students with disabilities need, and

that means she knows if the school she works at now is a good fit for Jonathan. A case that help

argue Young’s point would be the Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley case. A deaf student, name Amy,

is very successful student who did well in school despite her lack of hearing. She did better than

a lot of students, however her parents wanted her to have a sign language interpreter. The

supreme courts final decision was that school officials have the right to decide to what is needed

to care for a student’s disabilities and that they do not have to provide the interpreter when Amy

is doing quite well with the support she has now. Debbie can use this case to say that she can

choose what the child needs, and she is not obligated to enroll the student.

The parents can argue that the school should provide for any student and have everything

they need. There is IDEA, which is a legislation that provides free public education to disabled

students, that is made to completely fit their needs. Also, there is FAPE, which is another term
Artifact #4 Special Education 1

that provides school aged children with free public education that is best for them as an

individual. Another term is LRE, this is a federal law that allows for students with disabilities to

be in a classroom with nondisabled students to learn to the fullest of their capabilities, and they

cannot be taken out of that class unless the student is not able to handle it, even with support. A

case that would support their argument would be the Cedar Rapids v. Garret F. case. Which is

about a ventilator dependent young man who is very successful in regular classes but needs a

person there to help with his physical needs while at school. The parents of this young man,

named Garret wanted the district to be the one to pay for the nursing services that is required for

him during the day. The school denied this request, saying that they are not required to help out

with the health care. Under the IDEA the court ruled that the district must pay for the expenses

necessary for Garret’s treatment. Jonathan’s parent could this case to say the district should

already have the tools needed to care their child and that IDEA requires for Young to let

Jonathan be amongst other children, without disabilities, with the fullest extent of education

possible for him. Another case that be used in their favor would be the Timothy v. Rochester

case. This case is about a boy, named Timothy who has a variety of disabilities, like Jonathan.

The board claimed that he would not benefit from being in any form of special education

programs, so they refused any request to put Timothy an any. When taken up to court, they ruled

that no matter the type of disabilities a student has, school boards must provide special education

services. This is also under the IDEA and the parents can use this argue to argue the same

reasons.

To me Young’s choice is not defensible. A lot of the cases seem to be supporting the

parents and children, due to IDEA and other programs mentioned above. Only one of the cases

that I have read, thus far, can be used to defend Debbie, which is the Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley
Artifact #4 Special Education 1

case. In this case Jonathan has full rights to be in a normal classroom to learn like everyone else,

while receiving the support and care he needs. Even though Young most likely wanted what’s

best for Jonathan in a more suitable facility, she still could have made accommodations for him.

I think that the courts will rule in the favor of Jonathan’s parents. Cases such as the ones

mentioned previously, also including the unified school district v. Holland, have valid points that

support the parent’s case. Disabled students are required to be given the chance be challenged in

the classroom and get the same type of education like other students. Student’s shouldn’t have to

be held back in their education just because they need extra care or one-on- one instruction. Any

school should be able to provide for all students because they should all be able to strive.
Artifact #4 Special Education 1

Citation Page

Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/176/

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.garret.htm

Steketee, A. M. (2018, May 17). Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District.

Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Timothy-W-v-Rochester-New-

Hampshire-School-District