Portfolio Artifact #5 1

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #5

Shelby R. Olson

College of Southern Nevada

Portfolio Artifact #5 2

Abstract

After being approached by a family regarding obtaining an education for their special

needs son, Debbie Young denies their request. This was due to the level of care the child would

require such as constant nurse supervision. She claims that she is not able to provide the best

learning environment for the student.

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #5

Jonathan’s Argument

Since the 1970’s, Americans have been pushing toward equal opportunity and adequate

education for special needs students. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act is the

result of multiple court cases and lobbying for the rights of disabled students. Known commonly

as the IDEA, it serves as protection and guidelines for special needs rights. For instance, in

Irving Independent School District v Tatro, a student required Clean Intermittent Catheterization

but was not granted such in their IEP. The court later agreed that if a student requires special

education under IDEA, they are entitled to all “related services”. In this scenario it is clear that

Ms. Young is obligated to provide the services Jonathan needs since he is “profoundly mentally

diabled”, therefore requiring special education.

Additionally, in Cedar Rapids Independent School District v Garrett F, it is specified

what is considered to be the school’s responsibility in regards to medical services required for

special needs students. In this case, the student was on a ventilator, requiring constant nursing

care which the school refused to provide. The court ruled that unless the services must be

administered only by a physician, it is the school’s responsibility to pay for and provide such

assistance. In correlation with Jonathan’s case, it is obvious that since he does not require

constant doctor supervision, Ms Young has a responsibility to provide for his care.
Portfolio Artifact #5 3

Ms. Young’s Argument

It can be argued that Ms. Young could have possibly refused taking in Jonathan due to

worry that her facility could not provide the best quality education that he deserves. For example,

in McLaughlin v Holt Public Schools, Gemma McLaughlin’s parents filed suit due to their

daughter not receiving the proper “least restrictive environment” they felt she was entitled to.

This ultimately ended with the court ruling in favor of placing the child in a school better

equipped to service her.

Additionally, Ms. Young’s many years of experience in special education may have

equipped her with a better knowledge of what certain children require from schooling and

allowed her to critically analyze whether her school was a good place for Jonathan. In the case of

Beth B. v. Clay, when a student’s disabilities hindered her academic success in a regular

classroom, the school bypassed the parents’ preferences and created an IEP and special

placement in a self-contained classroom. This decision was upheld by the court in stating, “the

school officials’ decision about how to best educate Beth is based on expertise that we cannot

match” (Underwood, Webb 2006 p. 155).

Final Opinion

I believe that the court would ultimately rule in favor of Jonathan because the IDEA

clearly outlines that schools have a responsibility to provide an adequate education for all

disabled students. Even if for some reason the school could not provide for Jonathan, there

would have to be many processes that administration would have to go through before being able

to refuse to teach a student. I had a very hard time finding any sort of support to back up a

principle turning away a student based on disabilities and it was extremely hard to create an

argument in support of such discrimination.

Portfolio Artifact #5 4

References

Beth B. v. Van Clay, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1020

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999)

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

Portfolio Artifact #5 5

McLaughlin v. Board of Educ., Holt Public Schools, 133 F. Supp. 2d 994

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