PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT # 5 EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH 1

DISABILITIES

Portfolio Artifact #5

Education of Students with Disabilities

Sandra Moore

College of Southern Nevada

November 18, 2017

Portfolio Artifact #5 Education of Student with Disabilities 2

Debbie Young a high school principal who has periodic position. Has also served as a special

education teacher and an assistant principal at a progressive upper-class school district in the

South. Ms. Young is approached by the parents of a severely disabled tenth-grade student,

Jonathan. Jonathan, suffers from multiple disabilities requiring constant care by a specially

trained nurse. He is mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Mr.

Young has refused the request of the parents because the expense and feels the school is not the

appropriate place for Jonathan to be.

The following cases I will present are in favor of Jonathans case towards getting the aide

needed form the school district. My first case is Stratham school v. Beth and David P (2003). In,

this case we see the parents were asking the school district to pay for traveling and customization

of the implant needed by the student. The parents are not asking for school district to fully pay

for the cochlear implant itself. This case relates to Jonathans case because it’s based on the

needs of the student. The student needs this device to improve his ability to communicate in the

classroom. Jonathan needed one-on-one care to be able to attend school, being a prominent

school, the school should be able to accommodate his request based on his IDEA assessment.

The IDEA states that if the condition has an impact on the student’s education to an extent that

requires the delivery of special education or related service. The student has right to a free and

appropriate education, a nondiscriminatory evaluation.

In our next case also in favor of Jonathan is Cedar Rapids Independent School District v.

Garrett F (1999). This case directly relates to Jonathans case is also about a student who needs

one-on-one nursing services. The school district tries to deny the request for due process hearing

under IDEA. The district court grated the parent’s judgment because the nursing services were

“related services” rather than excluded “medical services.” In Jonathan’s case just like stated by
Portfolio Artifact #5 Education of Student with Disabilities 3

the court, the services related to his IDEA plan and were needed by the student to function within

the school. The services required should be deemed necessary for the student to benefit from

special education under IDEA. The parents should request a hearing based on the special

education needs of the student to the district. The principal can’t prohibit or deny the needs of a

special needs student without first being assess by IDEA evaluation.

The next two cases will be against Jonathans cases based on his needs. In the case of

McLaughlin v. Hold Public Schools (2003) in this case we learned that the students can be sent

outside neighborhood school to receive programs or services provided by neighboring school

services that were not available at current school. This case relates to Jonathans cases because

the principal has suggested that this school is not the appropriate placement for Jonathan based

on his needs. Ms. Young may have a school in mind that offers all the services required by the

student that is not currently available at her school. We also must know the environment of the

current school whether it has the standards needed for such care to be provided at this facility.

Whether being the space available for a nurse or equipment needed within the classroom to fit

his needs. The principal had to decide based on the current resources available at the school and

if it would be an appropriate environment for the student’s requirements.

In my second case against Jonathan I have chosen the Beth v. Van Clay case (2002). In

the Beth v. Van Clay the school district recommended that the student needs could not be met at

the current school environment. They have suggested that the student be placed in an ELS

programs at a different public school, this school has the programs and requirements needed by

the student that the current school could not accommodate. This like Jonathans case gives the

student a better option for accommodation at a different school where the setting is more open to

special needs or accommodations are already available. In Beth v. Van Clay case the judge state
Portfolio Artifact #5 Education of Student with Disabilities 4

“the school officials’ decision about how to best educate Beth is based on expertise that we

cannot match.” This same statement would apply in Jonathan’s case the school decided based on

Jonathans needs and they assess that, these needs and requirements could not be met this school.

In conclusion to Jonathans case it would have to be assess by the IDEA regarding the

requirements needed by the student against the available resources at the current school

environment. This information is not provided in our scenario, so I will assume that the principal

decided based on current resources available which could be a violation against Jonathans IEP

and IDEA rights. These kinds of decisions need to be made by school district and after the

IDEA, IEP is assess.

Portfolio Artifact #5 Education of Student with Disabilities 5

References

Underwood, J., Webb, L. D., (2006). School Law for Techers concept and application.

Beth B v. Clay (2002)., Pg. (9).

Underwood, J., Webb, L. D., (2006). School Law for Techers concept and application.

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. (1999)., Pg. (8)

Underwood, J., Webb, L. D., (2006). School Law for Techers concept and application.

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools (2003)., Pg. (9).

Underwood, J., Webb, L. D., (2006). School Law for Techers concept and application.

Stratham school v. Beth and David P. (2003)., Pg. (8).