EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #5 1

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #5

Jordan Bachman

College of Southern Nevada

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #5 2

Debbie Young, a seasoned high school principal, served as a special education teacher

and an assistant principal in a progressive, affluent school district in the South. Jonathan, a

severely disabled tenth-grade student who struggles with mental disabilities, has spastic

quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder, requires constant care by a specially trained nurse.

Jonathon’s parents approached Young to discuss their son’s attendance for one of the schools in

this district. Young refused the parents’ request due to extraordinary expense and a view that the

school is not the most appropriate placement for Jonathan.

Two cases can be studied in favor of Young. One case is Mclaughlin vs. Holt Public

Schools. In this case the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals “specifically found that a student could

be served outside of the neighboring school if another school in the district, rather than the

neighboring school, offered the program the student needed” (School Law for Teachers, 155).

Young could argue that the school was not an appropriate fit due to their lack of funding to

provide the necessary services it would take to provide appropriate educational benefits.

Another case that can be studied is Sacramento City Unified School District. V. Holland.

In this case, the Ninth Circuit adopted factors in determining the least restrictive environment.

One of these factors includes the cost of mainstreaming the child into the regular classroom.

Young could argue that the cost of enrolling Jonathan is far greater than what the school can

accommodate. Another factor in determining the least restrictive environment is the educational

benefits available in a regular classroom supplemented with appropriate aids and services as

compared with the educational benefits available to the child if placed in a special education

classroom. Young could argue that the educational benefits of attending a different school

outweigh the benefits that would be provided by her school.

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #5 3

Two cases can be studied in favor of Jonathan. One case is Cedar Rapids Independent

School District v. Garrett F. In this case a special needs student was denied nursing services. The

district court granted the parent’s summary judgement on the ground that the nursing services

were “related services” rather than excluded “medical services”. Jonathon’s party could argue

that his nursing services also fall under “related services” since the requirements do not have to

be performed only by a physician.

Another case that can be studied in favor of Jonathan is Irving Independent School

District v. Tatro. In this case, the court concluded that a student’s CIC services was a “related

service” that the school district was required to provide under the EHA. Jonathan’s party could

argue that his nursing services are required in order to be in school thus determining that the

service must be provided in order to grant Jonathan was free and appropriate education.

In my opinion, a court would rule in favor of Jonathan. Under the Individuals with

Disabilities Act, schools that receive federal funds must accommodate a free and appropriate

education and related services designed to meet their unique needs to all children aged 3 to 21

years with disabilities, regardless of the nature of severity of their disabilities (School Law for

Teachers, 143). The key here is “regardless of the nature of severity of their disabilities”.

Following this standard, Young would actively be denying the appropriate accommodations for

Jonathan and would be discriminating against him for his disabilities.

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #5 4

Reference Page

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999)

Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984)

McLaughlin v. Board of Educ., Holt Public Schools, 133 F. Supp. 2d 994 (6th Cir. 2003)

Sacramento City Unified School District. V. Holland, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994)