Running head: FAPE is not Free 1

FAPE is not Free

Chapter 8 Assignment Submission (Portfolio #5)

Tina Johnsen

EDU210: Nevada School Law

Dr. Dale Warby

October 10, 2016

FAPE IS NOT FREE 2

A new case presents itself to the court this week, distinct in that it involves the education

of a disabled student. Jonathan has several disabilities; in fact he requires constant care by a

specially trained nurse. He is also mentally disabled with spastic quadriplegia and suffers from a

seizure disorder. The case is based on the request of Jonathans parents for their son, a tenth-

grader, to attend a school in a specific district. They approached Debbie Young, principal of one

of the high schools, to request placement. Young refuses the parents request due to the expense

and that her school is not the most appropriate placement for Jonathan. The court must decide if

the principals decision is defensible.

In most disability cases, the courts will rule in favor of the student. With the Free and

Appropriate Public Education requirement, it is up to the school districts to implement an

appropriate placement to provide instruction. The FAPE is the defining component of the

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act. The passage of IDEA came from the

pressure following several court cases based on the Mills vs. Washington DC Board of

Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972) decision that no child could be denied a public education

because of mental, behavioral, physical or emotional handicaps or deficiencies.

If the severity of Jonathans disabilities was the cause of concern for the principals

decision, there are details that need to be clarified. In the scenario, it is stated that he suffers from

multiple disabilities requiring constant care by a specially trained nurse. According to the case,

Cedar Rapids Independent School District vs. Garrett F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999), the nursing care

would be considered a related service and should be provided. The court affirmed the ruling that

stated that the school district was required to provide school health services, which are provided

by a qualified school nurse or other qualified person. As a trained nurse, not a physician,
FAPE IS NOT FREE 3

provides Jonathans care the services should be provided by the school to insure his free and

appropriate education.

With the principal citing expenses as one of the reasons for refusal of placement, the

determining factors of the least restrictive environment must be evaluated. One of the factors

adopted from the ruling in the case, Sacramento City Unified School District vs. Holland, 786 F.

Supp. 874 (1992) considers the cost in making an appropriate placement. If the cost of

educating a handicapped child in a regular classroom is so great that it would significantly

impact upon the education of other children in the district, the education in a regular classroom is

not appropriate. The school would not have to make placement available if they could show a

financial impact on the other students.

Appropriate placement could also be discussed in regards to suggesting another school

that might better serve Jonathans needs. The scenario states that Debbie Young is a seasoned

principal as well as an experienced special education teacher. She is well equipped with the

knowledge to properly place Jonathan. As supported in the case, Beth B vs. Van Clay, 211 F.

Supp. 2d 1020 (2001), the school officials decision about how to best educate Beth is based on

expertise that we cannot match. The courts agreed that the student would benefit from a

placement outside of the neighborhood school based on the school officials input.

In closing, the court would find in favor of the principal and the school. As an

experienced educator and administrator, Debbie Young would be knowledgeable in her

placement refusal. As cited in McLaughlin vs. Holt Public Schools, 320 F3d. 663 (2003), the

court specifically found that a student could be served outside of the neighborhood school if

another school in the districtoffered the program the student needed. So, as long as
FAPE IS NOT FREE 4

appropriate placement was offered, Jonathans right to a free and appropriate education had not

been violated.
FAPE IS NOT FREE 5

References

Beth B vs. Van Clay, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (2001). Leagle. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/20011231211FSupp2d1020_11139/BETH%20B.%20v.

%20VAN%20CLAY

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

October 10, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/96-1793

McLaughlin vs. Holt Public Schools, 320 F3d. 663 (2003)

Mills vs. Washington DC Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972). DisabilityJustice.

Retrieved October 9, 2016, from http://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-education/

Sacramento City Unified School District vs. Holland, 786 F. Supp. 874 (1992). Leagle. Retrieved

October 9, 2016, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921660786FSupp874_11558/BD.%20OF%20EDUC.,

%20SACRAMENTO%20CITY%20SCHOOL%20D.%20v.%20HOLLAND

Underwood, J. & Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education Inc.