Artifact # 5 1

Special Education

Berenice Perez

EDU 210 Nevada School Law

Artifact #5 2

Debbie Young was a Special Education teacher and then became an assistant principal.

She later progressed and became a seasoned High School teacher in a substantial school district

in the South. The parents of Jonathan, a tenth-grade student with multiple disabilities

approached Young regarding Jonathan's disability. Young denied the parent's request because of

the extraordinary expenses and her opinion that school is not the most adequate placement for

Jonathan. Jonathan is severely disabled and requires constant care from a specialized trained

nurse. Jonathan is mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia and has a seizure disorder.

The first case to support Debbie Young's decision is Beth v van Clay, in this case, Beth

has a Rett Syndrome which means she has severe disabilities both cognitive and physical. She is

nonverbal so uses eye contact to communicate so because of her severe communicative ad motor

impairments she is said to have the ability of a twelve to eighteen-month-old and others say four

to six year old. She is enrolled in a public school with other seventh graders so she has been

educated in a regular classroom. The school suggests the student attend a different school where

there is a program recommended for students with her specified IEP. The school she currently

attends does not have the appropriate programs for her. The parents filed against the school

because they didn't want to remove the student from that school and the IEP was not appropriate

for Beth. The court ruled that the IEP was adequate under the IDEA act. The school's

recommendation to place Beth in a classroom with ELS satisfies the FAPE requirement. Young’s

view of having the student placed in a better educational environment is a view that can be

described to benefit Jonathan.

The second court case to defend Young would be the court case of Fry v. Napoleon

Community school. This court case talks about Ehlena Fry who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy
Artifact #5 3

so that means she has impairments on motor skills and mobility. Her pediatrician said a service

dog would help her move around by opening doors, turning lights on and more but the school

denied permission for the service dog to be in school. Instead, the school said a human can do all

the things the service dog would do. The parents argued that the service god fell under the

Americans with Disability Act. The school let the service do with Ehlena in school but was not

allowed to be with her during recess, lunchtime, library, and computers. The parents removed

their child from that school into a district that they felt they were welcomed. They filed against

the school for the Americans Disability Act. The school is to make accommodations for people

with disabilities. The court ruled that the service dog allowed the student to develop a bond and

function more independently. In Young's case if they don't get federal funds because they are a

wealthy school they could accommodate the student's needs so if there are extraordinary

expenses the school accommodates for the students to have a more successful education.

The first case siding with the parents regarding the denial of their request is Irving Indep.

School district vs, Tatro. This case focuses on physical and health impairments that may not

prevent being served in public schools. Amber Tatro had various health issues because she was

born with spina bifida so she had a bladder condition so she needed to be catheterized for hours.

This could be done by a non-specialist and could be taught in under an hour but the school

denied the request to provide the service. When Ambers Special Education program was filed

her special treatment was not included so the parents filed against the school for violating the

EAHCA. Since the school receives federal funding the school must provide “ relative services.”

The parents also filed that the school receives funding so denying the service to Amber the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is being violated because it prevents any handicapped individual from
Artifact #5 4

being excluded from or denial of benefits from a program that receives federal funds. The

supreme court ruled that the child needed the CIC service and without the child could not benefit

from the special education. The court stated that the CIC qualified as a related service. The

school must provide a service for the student. This benefits Jonathan because he can not be

denied services because of extraordinary expenses if the school receives federal funds for special

education. Jonathan requires constant care which falls under the “ relative services.”

The second court case that supports Jonathan's parent's case is Timothy W. v. Rochester,

New Hampshire, School district. In this case, Timothy was multiple handicapped and profoundly

intellectually disabled with spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, and cortical blindness. The

school board was still trying to determine if timothy qualified under the educationally

handicapped. There was a split decision because some said he was capable of identifying sounds

and other stimuli but others said he had no educational potential. The school board said the

severity of his disability would prevent him from being capable of benefiting from special

education services. In the end, the school board denied educational service to Timothy.

Timothy's attorney then filed a lawsuit against the school board by stating they violated the

EAHCA and also the equal protection act and due process. On February 7, 1989, the court stated

that any child that fell under the disability act was entitled to special education and relative

services. Those with severe disabilities were especially entitled. “ Uneducable '' does not stop

them from the EAHCA. The court ruled they are priority students which led to the zero reject

policy. All in all, the capacity to benefit is not a prerequisite. Jonothan lies under this act which

means he can not be rejected because of the severity of his disability. The principal can not reject

any educational services to Jonathan because of her opinion of him being uneducable.
Artifact #5 5

Looking at the court cases discussing each side, I do believe the court will side with

Jonathan's parents because if the school receives funds they are to give Jonathan any special

education services because of the funding provided. The zero protection is also very important

when discussing this case because regardless of the severity of the disability all students have the

right to education. Actually, students with more severe disabilities are more important and

should especially be granted special education and relative services. The principal made an

inappropriate comment to say the school is not an adequate placement for the student. Jonathan

falls under these acts and policies since his case is very similar to Timothy W. v. Rochester, New

Hampshire, School district making which granted Timothy educational services and relative

services.
Artifact #5 6

Reference

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Irving-Independent-School-District-v-Tatro

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Timothy-W-v-Rochester-New-Hampshire-School-District

https://openjurist.org/282/f3d/493/beth-v-van-clay

https://www.aclu.org/cases/fry-v-napoleon-community-schools

School Law For Teacher: Concepts and Applications Julie Underwood, L. Dean Webb