Running head: Artifact #5 Special Education 1

Artifact #5

Special Education

Yailin Solis

College of Southern Nevada

October 15,2019
Running head: Artifact #5 Special Education 2

A seasonal high school principal by the name Debbie Young served as a special

education teacher at a progressive, affluent school district in the south. Debbie is approached by

Jonathan’s parents a severely disabled tenth- grade student and is asked if Jonathan may attend

one of the schools in the district. Jonathan’s disabilities require constant care by a specially

trained nurse. He is profoundly mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure

disorder. Debbie refused the parent's request because the school they requested is not the most

appropriate for Jonathan's placement. Also, it would be an extraordinary expense for the school.

Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) will be the first case in favor of Jonathans

placement in the school. In the case, Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) Amy Rowley a deaf

student attended regular classes. When Amy was in kindergarten, she received an FM hearing aid

that amplifies words that are being spoken to her. The following year Amy received her FM

hearing aid along with instructions from a tutor for the deaf that occurred for one hour a day.

Amy also received speech therapy for three hours a week, however, her parents wanted the

school to provide Amy a sign language interpreter. The school denied their request and Amy’s

parents filed a lawsuit against Furnace Woods school. The supreme court sided with the school

and stated that “the school did not have to provide the best education, but one reasonably

calculated to confer educational benefits” (Underwood & Webb,2006).Debbie was able to accept

Jonathan because it was possible to comply with some accommodations, but not all. Jonathan

was eligible for services and as long as he obtains a minimum level of services that will help to

reach the IEP goals, he is considered to have an appropriate education. In addition, the most

important principle of the IDEA is that “all children aged 3 to 21 years with disabilities,

regardless of the nature or severity of their disabilities, must have available to them a free and
Running head: Artifact #5 Special Education 3

appropriate education and related services designed to meet their unique needs” (Underwood &

Webb,2006).

LT v. Warwick School Committee (2004) will be the second case presented in favor of

Jonathan's placement in the school. In the case LT v. Warwick School Committee (2004) N.B.

was a child that suffered from autism and had been in a special needs program since

kindergarten. His mother Mrs. B contacted Warwick School district to find out what special

education services would be available for N.B., and a meeting with the school was later

scheduled. Warwick proposed an IEP for N.B. before school started, and the IEP stated that N.B.

would be kept in a self-contained classroom that had been recently established for autistic

children. This sort of classroom is a technique known as Treatment and Education of Autistic

and Communication- Handicapped Children. N.B.’s parents rejected the proposed IEP and

enrolled N.B. in a private school that proposed an IEP with a technique known as Discrete Trial

Training (DTT). Warwick proposed another IEP, but it was also rejected by N.B’s parents. A

lawsuit was filed against Warwick for tuition reimbursement of the private school N.B. was

enrolled into. The court sided with N.B.’s parents stating that Warwick had violated. Its

procedural obligations under the IDEA. Warwick lacked the knowledge of N.B. to determine a

proper teaching technique to use and that Warwick had pre-determined that N.B. would be

placed in the school system. Debbie did not present an IEP that Jonathan’s parents could

examine. Jonathan can enroll into the school his parents requested because the “IDEA does not

require a public school to provide what is best for a special needs child, only that it provide an

IEP that is ‘reasonably calculate’ to provide an ‘appropriate’ education as defined in federal and

state law” (Underwood & Webb,2006). Debbie does not have to deny Jonathan a place in the

school without presenting a possible IEP for Jonathan.

Running head: Artifact #5 Special Education 4

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984) will be the first case presented in

favor of Debbie’s decision to refuse Jonathan's placement in the school district. In the case,

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984) Amber who is a three-and-a-half-year-old

student who suffers from spina bifida, however due to this Amber suffers from a neurogenic

bladder. Her condition required her to use a catheter every three or four hours a day to avoid

kidney injury, yet Amber was unable to perform this on her own due to her age. Irving

Independent school district agreed to provide special education for Amber as required by the

federal Education of the Handicapped Act. Amber's IEP required her to attend early childhood

development classes and receive physical and occupational therapy however, her IEP never

mentioned anyone helping her use her catheter. Amber's parents filed a lawsuit against the school

district and requested someone to help amber when she needed to use her catheter, and for

damages and attorney fees. The court sided with Ambers parents claiming that helping with the

use of a catheter was a related service because Amber needed to remain in the classroom. Irving

Independent School District v. Tatro (1984) is siding with Debbie’s decision to deny Jonathan's

placement in the district because Jonathan's well-being is the main priority and he is better of at a

school that offers the accommodations he needs. Jonathan will also not be able to get a proper

education because he will not have a trained nurse to watch him while he is in his classes. Lastly,

the school does not have the budget to get Jonathan the extra accommodations for his

educational needs.

Beth B v. Clay(2002) will be the second case presented in favor of Debbie’s decision to

refuse Jonathan's placement in the school district. In the case, Beth B v. Clay(2002) Beth was a

student with the cognitive ability of a 1year old to a 6-year-old and could not walk unassisted nor

speak she communicated with eye gazes. Beth began school in a regular classroom from 1994-
Running head: Artifact #5 Special Education 5

1997. The school district developed an IEP that placed her in a self-contained program, however,

the IEP was designed without her parents’ consent. Beth’s parents requested a hearing however

the court sided with the school district by saying “ the school official’s decision about how to

best educate Beth is based on expertise that we cannot match” (Underwood & Webb,2006).

Jonathan cannot attend a school that does not offer the accommodations he needs. Debbie has

enough knowledge to know what the best placement for Jonathan is since she was a special

education teacher. As the court stated the school officials know what’s best for their students.

Lastly just because a school is close to a student that does not “entitle them to placement in their

neighborhood school.

My decision for this case is against Debbie’s decision to not give Jonathan a place in the

school. Before she decides an IEP should be presented to Jonathan's parents like in the case LT v.

Warwick School Committee (2004) and his parents should decide whether they agree with his

placement or not. As presented in the case Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) Debbie could

have offered Jonathan services and as long as he obtains a minimum level of services that help to

reach the IEP goals, he is considered to have an appropriate education. Lastly, Jonathan should

not be denied an education at the school, because of higher expenses. I believe the court will side

with Jonathan’s parents.

Running head: Artifact #5 Special Education 6

References

Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester City. v. Rowley (1982).
(n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 14, 2019, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-
1002

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Beth v. Van Clay (2002). Retrieved
October 12, 2019, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1250134.html

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Lt v. Warwick School Committee
(2004). Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-
circuit/1241530.html

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984). (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 14, 2019,
from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/83-558

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education.