1

Hailey Peck – 5001916018

EDU 210 – 1005

Portfolio Artifact #5
 2

The parents of a disabled student named Jonathan are requesting Jonathan’s admission to

a school in a southern state. Jonathan has spastic quadriplegia, a seizure disorder, and is

profoundly mentally disabled. He requires constant care by a specially trained nurse. The

principal of the high school refuses the parents’ request. Debbie Young, the principal, states that

the school is not an appropriate place for Jonathan and also refuses because of the extraordinary

expense it would take to care for the boy.

In 1993, a court ruling, titled Florence County School District v. Carter, Shannon Carter,

a student with learning disabilities, was offered an IEP that was not satisfactory to her parents.

Her parents tried to call for a hearing, saying the IEP was inadequate, but were rejected. In the

meantime, Shannon was enrolled in a private school, Trident Academy, specializing in students

with learning disabilities. After graduation, Shannon’s parents opened the case to get

reimbursement from the school board for the inadequate IEP that caused Shannon to be placed at

the costly private school. The court ruled in favor of the school board saying that the private

school did not meet the requirements under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act),

meaning that Trident Academy was not responsible for Shannon’s inadequate IEP and Shannon

was not placed at the private school by a state official. In conclusion, it was Shannon’s parents

that were responsible for putting their daughter in the private school and were not entitled to

reimbursement.

In 1986, John Doe, a student with learning disabilities and labeled as “emotionally

disturbed” was suspended indefinitely for attacking another student. John Doe’s attack was

deemed as being disability-related due to him being emotionally disturbed and having anger

problems from being abused as a child. In the court case Doe v. Maher, the decision of the
 3

school district to indefinitely suspend or expel a student due to violent activity, regardless of

whether or not the activity was disability-related, in order to protect the safety of other students.

Garret F. is an intelligent young man with an excellent education record. He was in an

accident as a young boy and was paralyzed from the neck down, requiring him to be on a

ventilator. His parents insisted that the school district provide the care he needed at school and,

when the district refused, the dilemma was taken to court. Because Garret would be unable to go

to school without the proper help, thus forfeiting his right to education, it was decided in the

court case Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. in 1999 that the school district

would be required to provide the needed care at school for the student.

In 1982, Board of Education v. Rowley mandated that children with disabilities are

entitled to a proper IEP and a “free appropriate public education.” This is a Supreme Court

ruling, meaning it is the law of the land and does not change a whole lot throughout the states.

The IDEA requires all states to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, ranging from

hearing impaired to children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

In the case of Jonathan, Debbie Young will be required to give him a position at in the

school district. Jonathan, no matter how severe his disabilities may be, is entitled to a free and

adequate special education. He is entitled to an IEP put together by his parents, the school, and a

specialist in order to create a personalized plan for his education. Based on the court case rulings

above and the laws of IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, this case will rule

in favor of Jonathan and his parents rather than Debbie Young.

 4

Citations

Ten Supreme Court Special Education Cases You Need to Know. (2014). Retrieved April 14,

2016, from http://massadvocates.org/billsview/