Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Expression
education? In this scenario, a veteran special education teacher and principal, Debbie Young
works at a prestigious school district down South. Jonathan is a 10th grade student with multiple
disabilities. He requires the constant care of a specially trained nurse. He is profoundly mentally
disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has frequent seizures. His parents want him to attend a
school in the school district, but Ms. Young refuses based on the enormous costs and her opinion
One court case that supports the parents is Cedar Rapids Community School District v.
Garret. (1999) In this case the student, Garret F. was wheelchair bound and ventilator dependent.
He needed the continual assistance of a nurse to assist him during school hours with the
ventilator. The school declined to provide financial assistance stating that it was not obligated to
provide one on one nursing care. An Administrative law judge at an Iowa school board hearing
decided that under IDEA, the school was financially obligated to provide school health services
that could be provided by a qualified school nurse or other qualified school personnel. But not
any medical service which had to be provided by a physician. This case relates to the scenario
that Ms. Young has to allow Jonathan to attend school and provide finances for the care of a one
on one nurse.
Another court case that supports the parents is Irving Independent School District v.
Tatro. (1984) In this case an eight-year-old girl with spina bifida could not keep control of her
bladder and had to be catharized every 3-4 hours in a minor procedure called CIC. This
procedure takes a few minutes and can be performed by a layperson with under an hour worth of
training. The school district received federal funding under the education of the handicapped act
to provide free appropriate public education including related services. The school made no
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 3
provision to provide CIC. The parents sued stating that CIC was a related service and was in the
child’s IEP. The court upheld the decision stating that the school was in violation of Act 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act. This case is relevant to Jonathan’s case because it clearly states that
One case in support of Ms. Young is Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v.
Rowley (1982). In this case a child with only minimal hearing was furnished with a hearing aid
by school officials and provided with a special tutor as per the provisions of the IEP. The parents
stated that the child was not learning at her full potential and needed a sign language interpreter
to accompany her to all her classes. The court upheld that the Education of the Handicapped Act
was upheld when the school provided the hearing device and the extra tutoring and appropriate
education did not require that they provide a sign language interpreter. This case can be applied
to the case because the school may be able to meet some of the needs of Jonathan but may not
My opinion of the scenario is that the parents are right, and the school should provide
Jonathan with a one on one nurse as a related service to provide appropriate education for him.
Backed up by the court case Cedar Rapids Community School District v Garret (1999) because it
clearly states that the school should employ qualified personnel to provide related services for
appropriate education.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 4
References
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999)