Artifact #5 Special Education Court Case 1

Artifact #5

Special Education Court Case

Dalia Miguez

College of Southern Nevada

April 10, 2018

Artifact #5 Special Education Court Case 2

Debbie Young, a prior special education teacher and an assistant principal in a prosperous

school district in the South, is now working as a seasoned high school principal. She was

approached by the parents of a tenth-grade student named Jonathan so he could attend one of the

schools in this district. Jonathan is a special needs student who requires constant care by a

trained nurse and has multiple disabilities such as being profoundly mentally disabled, seizures,

and spastic quadriplegia. Young denies the parents’ request because she believes that the school

is not the most appropriate placement for Jonathan and due to extraordinary expense.

LT v. Warwick School District(1969) will be the first case presented in order to argue that

Young’s decision was defensible. In the case of LT v. Warwick School District(1969), a family

moved from Georgia to Warwick and was looking for a placement for their child who had

autism. The District offered a self-contained classroom that used a technique known as

Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication-Handicapped Children because it

believed it was the appropriate placement for their child. The parents rejected this offer because

they preferred that their child were to be enrolled in a private school that used a different

technique known as Discrete Trial Training. The Court stated that “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.”

Using LT v. Warwick School District(1969) as base, Young can allege that she denied the request

because the school was not the place for Jonathan to receive an ‘appropriate’ education. Young

can also state that although the parents of Jonathan may believe that school is the best for their

child, like stated in LT v. Warwick School District(1969), ‘IDEA does not require[...]to provide
Artifact #5 Special Education Court Case 3

what is best,’ therefore need to understand her decision on refusing their request. It can be stated

that Young’s decision was definsible because she used her experience as a past special education

teacher to determine that the school was not the best place for Jonathan and he would not be

provided the reasonable chance he is entitled to into making progress if he were to be accepted

into that school.

Board of Education v. Rowley(1980) will be the second case presented in order to argue

that Young’s decision was defensible. In the case of Board of Education v. Rowley(1980), Amy

Rowley was a deaf student who attended regular class at her school. While she was in

kindergarten, she received an FM hearing aid that amplified words spoken by teachers and

students in order to help her. The following school year, she received the FM hearing aid as well

as a tutor for the deaf and a speech therapist. Although, her parents wanted the school to provide

her with a sign language interpreter and filed against the school. The Supreme Court stated that

the school did not have to provide the best education, but one that was reasonable and of

educational benefit to her. Using Board of Education v. Rowley(1980) as grounds, Young can

allegate that she denied the parent’s request because the school wouldn’t be the best education

nor the most reasonable one for Jonathan. She can state that the school district is not obligated to

give in on all parents request. Young can argue that free appropriate public education did not

mean “an opportunity to achieve full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to

other children.” Young’s decision can be found defensible under Board of Education v.

Rowley(1980) because she wasn’t violating Jonathan’s rights by deciding the school wasn’t the

most appropriate place for him and not accepting the parents’ request of what they thought was

the best for Jonathan.

Artifact #5 Special Education Court Case 4

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garret F.(1999) will be the first case

presented to argue that Young’s decision on denying Jonathan a placement in the school was not

defensible. In Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garret F.(1999), Garret F. is a minor

student who is quadriplegic and requires a wheelchair, a ventilator, and a nurse. The school

district believed that it was not obligated to provide or pay for one-on-one care, such as a nurse,

considering that it was too costly. The Court held that under IDEA, schools were required to

provide continuous nursing services to disabled students who needed them. Under Cedar Rapids

Independent School District v. Garret F.(1999), the Court admitted that “such care was costly”,

and Jonathan’s parents can argue that Young was aware of this, that’s why one of the reasons she

rejected their petition was “extraordinary expense.” Although Jonathan’s parents can state that

even though it is costly, such as explained in Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garret

F.(1999), “the benefits of providing Garrett with his needed care outweighed the [financial]

burdens.” Jonathan is a student who needs constant care, including a nurse, and his parents can

argue that it is the school district’s responsibility, under IDEA, to provide such things therefore

Young’s decision to reject their petition should be invalid and a breach to their son’s rights.

The second case presented in order to argue that Young’s decision on deying Jonathan a

placement in the school was not defensible will be McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools(2001). In

the case of McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools(2001), Emma is an eight year-old student who has

Down’s Syndrome. Emma is goes to a school that is outside her neighborhood, and her parents

wants her to go to a closer school. With McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools(2001), the Court

stated that a student could be served outside of the neighborhood school. Using McLaughlin v.

Holt Public Schools(2001), Jonathan’s parents could argue that their request should at least be
Artifact #5 Special Education Court Case 5

thought about before being denied. Jonathan’s IEP should had been reviewed before Young made

a decision. McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools(2001) could be used to show that he was entitled

to attend another school as long as it offered his program, and if Young thought it wasn’t the

appropriate setting for him, there should had been a meeting discussion about such decision first.

My decision on Jonathan’s case is that Young’s decision on rejecting his parents request

of him attending such school was indeed defensible. Young was an experienced Special

Education teacher and knew the programs her school served. Under LT v. Warwick School

District(1969), Young’s decision was appropriate because, such as IDEA states, the school

district is not required to provide what is best but what is appropriate, and Young didn’t even

think that school was appropriate for Jonathan. Under Board of Education v. Rowley(1980), it

can be argued that Young’s decision was defensible because Jonathan’s rights to “free and public

education” were not being violated by her rejecting his parents request and that the school

district also did not have to comply to every parent’s request. Therefore, in Jonathan’s case,

Young did not breach any of his rights by rejecting his parents request.
Artifact #5 Special Education Court Case 6

References

CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GARRET F No. 96-1793 (1999).

(n.d). Retrieved April 10, 2018.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/526/66.html

LT v. WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE No. 03-1988 (1969). (n.d) Retrieved April 10, 2018.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1241530.html

MCLAUGHLIN V. BOARD OF EDUC., HOLT PUBLIC SCHOOLS No. 1:00-CV-69. (n.d)

Retrieved April 10, 2018.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/133/994/2292901/

ROWLEY V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HENDRICK HUDSON CENT. S.D No. 79 Civ.

2139. (n.d) Retrieved April 10, 2018
https://www.leagle.com/decision/19801019483fsupp5361930

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