Sabina Smith 1

11/30/13

Portfolio Artifact #5
Sabina Smith
EDU 210
Professor Dr. Celia Isbell

Sabina Smith 2

Special education teacher and assistant Principal Debbie Young are in a seasonal
Principal position in High School. Debbie is approached by severely disabled tenth-grade student
to have their son, Jonathan, attend one of the schools in this district (in the South). Jonathan
requires constant care by specially train nurse because of his multiple disabilities -he is
profoundly mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Principal
Young refuses the parents request due to extraordinary expense and a view that the school is not
the most appropriate placement for Jonathan.
LT v. Warwick School Committee(2004) in this case district has offered self-contained
classroom that use a modified version of educational techniques known as treatment and
education of autistic and communication- Handicapped children. Parents rejected this offered
preferring use of different technique Discrete Trial Training. The first Circuit Court of Appeals
found that this student was not in tittle to particular program wanted by the parents. IDEA does
not require whats the best for the special needs child, only that is provided an IEP that is
reasonably calculated to provide and appropriate education as defined in federal and state
law. This case we see few similarities where parents wanted something else for their disable
children that was offered in schools. Looking at this case principal made right decision because
she is not require to meeting every expectation of disable childs parents.
Not all students are in tittle to be place in their neighbor schools like in McLaughlin v
Holt Public Schools (1994) case the Sixth Court of appeals specifically found that student could
be serve outside of the neighborhood school if another school in the district offered the program
the student needed. Similarly was in Beth B. v Clay student could not walk unassisted and

Sabina Smith 3
communicated primarily by eye gaze. Beth started education in regular classroom and was there
for 3 years. School district- over her parents objection- developed an IEP that place Beth in selfcontained program. The school official decision about how to best educate Beth is based on
expertise that we (school) cannot match. In those two cases we have a lot of similarities to our
one. In both decision was made upholding school decision in witch was decided that student
would be better in different schools where needed program is offered. If Principal Young was
looking at those cases she knew she was making a right decision for kid and her school.
Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F( 1999) this case quadriplegic
student, who was ventilator dependent, required continuous one-on-one nursing services. The
parents provided the nursing services at school until the student entered fifth grade, they
requested the school district to provide the services. The school district refused, and the parents
requested due process hearing under IDEA. After an administrative law judge ruled that the
school district was require to provide the services under IDEA as a related service the school
district appealed to district court. That court granted the parents summary judgment on the
ground that nursing services were related services. This case is almost the same as the one that
we are working on. School district loses because they didnt want to provide nursing services to
the student. In our case school Principal Debbie denied Jonathan transfer to her school because
of expenses. I think that if we look at those cases together we can tell that Principal Debbie
didnt make right decision and would lose in court.
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro the Supreme Court emphasize that child must
have a disability under IDEA before he or she can be eligible for related services. In this case
student with spine bifida required Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC) services in order to
attend special education classes. The students IEP made no provision for school personnel to

Sabina Smith 4
administrate the CIC services. After exhausting their administrative remedies in attempting to
obtain their service, the students parents filed suit against the school district., Court concluded
that CIC was related to the effort to education of the child and school had to provide those
services. This case is very similar to ours because in our case Principal refuses attending school
for child because his disabilities require a lot of money form school. If looking at this case
Principal made very bad decision and would lost in court because very child has a right to
Education and every needs has to be meet.
I think the only way that decision made by seasonal principal Yong was good if there was
another school somewhere close that was providing similar services to their students. If there
was not a school that was providing those services I think this principal made wrong decision. I
think every student disable or not have a right to go to school close to home or in a better district.
Looking at the rules and laws I think one of the biggest mistake was not consulting her decision
and not even giving child a chance and see how would it work. She should give Jonathan
probation time and make sure that his studying is not interfering whit schools business and other
student learning. I personally think that there should be special schools that are specially made
for student with disabilities, which would make it so much easier. In a lot of European counters
there are special schools for children with disabilities that have special tool and technique to
teach them.

Sabina Smith 5

References:
1) Underwood, J. and Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers concepts and
applications (page 120-130). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.