Artifact #5 Special Education 1

Artifact #5

Special Education

Veronica Martinez

College of Southern Nevada

April 11, 2018

Artifact #5 Special Education 2

An experienced principle, Debbie Young, is approached by parents of a severely disabled

student, Jonathan. Jonathan’s parents are requesting constant care by a specially trained nurse

due to his multiple disabilities. Jonathan is mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has

a seizure disorder. Due to the severity of his disabilities, his care would be incredibly expensive.

Although, Young was previously a special education teacher, she declines the parent’s request

due to the cost Jonathan’s care would be and feels that her school is not able to accommodate

his needs. The question is if the principal’s decision is defensible or not.

The first case presented for the school is Dale Alice v. Board of Education of Bradley

Bourbonnais High School District No 307 (2001). In this case, Dale M., was a troubled high

school student in Illinois. Dale had major disciplinary issues and was sent to a therapeutic day

school. Although, Dale skipped a lot of school there, when he did choose to attend, his behavior

was noted to be appropriate and the grades of the work he turned in were good. However,

Dale also had substance abuse issues and in January of 1995, he was hospitalized for depression

and simultaneously charged with residential burglary and the theft of a car, for which he

received probation. After being discharged from the hospital, Dale was homeschooled until

November because he refused to return to school. However, in November, Dale had another

run in with the law, another charge of residential burglary, this time being sent to jail. Dale was

examined by a psychiatrist and was diagnosed with a conduct disorder, depression, and

substance abuse, but upon the psychiatric evaluation, Dale was not found to have any learning

disabilities. Upon Dale’s release, the school district suggested he be placed back in the

therapeutic day school, but Dale’s mother wanted him to attend Elan School, a residential

boarding school for difficult children. The mother wanted reimbursement for the school’s
Artifact #5 Special Education 3

tuition stating that the residential school was appropriate and that refusing her reimbursement,

would violate her child’s right to “free and appropriate education.” The case was taken to the

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where it was decided that the residential placement of Dale at

Elan was not necessary. In relevance to the Young case, both sets of parents want a school in

particular for their child. Jonathan’s parents have picked Young’s school for their preference

just as Dale’s mother picked Elan. However, the services that are offered and within the means

of the chosen school are not accommodating to the student. The court ruled that preference is

not a necessity and therefore, does not fall under the terms of “free and appropriate

education.”

The next case to be presented for the school is McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools (2003).

In this case, Emma McLaughlin, a child with down syndrome, attended school within the Holt

Public School District. As per the IDEA, McLaughlin’s parents had IEPs in place every year she

received special education services. In 1999, an IEP proposed that Emma’s education called for

a categorical classroom. However, Dimondale Elementary, the school which Emma would have

attended if she was not disabled and the school closest to her home, did not have categorical

classroom services. A categorical classroom was available at the neighboring school, Sycamore

Elementary, but it was approximately 7 miles further from their home. Emma’s parents filed a

dissenting report feeling that Emma’s needs could be met in a resource classroom, which was

available at her current Dimondale Elementary School. The case was taken to the Sixth Circuit

Court of Appeals where it was decided that the categorical classroom was appropriate and that

a student could be moved to another school within the district if the other school had the

appropriate settings to meet the IEP needs of the student. In relevance to the Young case,
Artifact #5 Special Education 4

Jonathan’s parents would like him to attend the school in which Debbie Young is the principal

for just as Emma McLaughlin’s parents wanted her to attend Dimondale Elementary. However,

just as Dimondale was not the appropriate setting for Emma, Young does not see her high

school as the appropriate setting for Jonathan. In McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools (2003), the

ruling showed that the needs of the student must be able to be met at the school in which they

wish to attend.

The first case to be presented for Jonathan and his family is Pennsylvania Associate of

Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972). In 1971, the Pennsylvania

Association of Retarded Citizens (PARC) sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over a law

that denied education to children who had not reached a mental age of 5 because their

education was considered to be too difficult to handle in a public school setting. The PARC

argued for the right of children to attend and benefit from education and classroom

environments. The case was taken to the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

where it was decided that the law denying education to disabled children was unconstitutional

and that all children, including those with a learning disability, had the right to a free and public

education. In relevance to the case for Jonathan, his parents would like him to attend the public

school setting. Although, his disabilities may appear to be burdensome and costly, because of

the ruling in Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

(1972), Jonathan has a right to a free and public education. The case was decided that children

up to the age of 21 are to be included in that and as long as he is under that age, Jonathan falls

into that category of protected disabled children.

Artifact #5 Special Education 5

The next case to be presented for Jonathan and his family is Cedar Rapids Independent

School District v. Garret F. (1999). In this case, a student, Garrett F., in the Cedar Rapids

Community School District, was wheelchair and ventilator dependent. As he was a quadriplegic,

Garrett required physical assistance daily. The school district found the services required by

Garrett to be too costly and refused to take financial responsibility for services they believed

were not legally obligated to provide. The case went to the District Court and Court of Appeals

where it was decided that if the requested services were related to keeping the disabled child in

school, the school district must provide those services. In this case, Garrett’s nursing services

were considered related and the court granted his parents summary judgement. In relevance to

the situation with Jonathan and his parents, the school, again, is found to be responsible for

care regardless of the cost. As Jonathan is a severely disabled child, such as Garrett F. was, and

is dependent on a numerous amount of services, the severity of their disabilities is irrelevant in

the matter of providing them with a free and public education. Such as the case of Cedar Rapids

Independent School District v. Garrett F. (1999) decided, if the services are related to keeping

Jonathan in school, then the school district is obligated to provide them.

My decision in the case of Jonathan’s care and education is with Jonathan and his

family. Jonathan has a right to a free and public education as decided in Pennsylvania

Association of Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972). Ms. Debbie Young

and the school district does not have the right to deny education to Jonathan because of his

numerous disabilities. Also, in the Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. (1999),

proved that the severity of the disabilities should not be relevant. That case found that as long
Artifact #5 Special Education 6

as the services he needs are to be related to keeping him in a school setting, then the school

district must oblige.

Artifact #5 Special Education 7

References

CEDAR RAPIDS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GARRETT F. 526 U.S. 66 (1999). Retrieved

April 13, 2018.

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

DALE M. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BRADLEY BOURBONNAIS HIGH SCHOOL 237 F.3d 813 (7th

Cir. 2001). Retrieved April 13, 2018.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1363362.html

MCLAUGHLIN v. HOLT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 320 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 2003). Retrieved April 14, 2018.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1253429.html

PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF RETARDED CITIZENS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

343 F. Supp. 179 (E.D. Pa. 1972). Retrieved April 14, 2018.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/343/279/1691591/

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper

Saddle River, NJ; Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.