Running head: ARTIFACT #4 SPECIAL EDUCATION 1

Artifact #4 Special Education

Arizbeth Zavala

College of Southern Nevada

EDU 210
ARTIFACT #4 2

Abstract

The past fifty years have witnessed a burst of legislative activity that has encouraged the growth

of special education. In present times, students with exceptionalities are provided with

educational benefits, opportunities, and most importantly civil rights. As noted by Gargiulo

(2015), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA is viewed as a “Bill of Rights”

for children with disabilities and their families because it is considered one of the most important

pieces of federal legislation instituted on their behalf (pg. 45). The IDEA ensures that all

exceptional children between the ages of three and twenty-one have a free appropriate public

education (FAPE) regardless of their disability. It also requires an individualized education

program (IEP) and related services that meet their particular needs. Additionally, children with

disabilities are to be educated and included to the maximum extent possible with nondisabled

students in the least restrictive environment (Cambron, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014). This means

that special classes, separate schooling, or the removal of a child from general education may

only be the result of an education that cannot be satisfactorily achieved in a general education

setting. As future educators, it is our responsibility to ensure comprehension of the IDEA so that

we can provide our exceptional students with the proper education they legally deserve.

Keywords: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Free Appropriate Public

Education (FAPE), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

ARTIFACT #4 3

Special Education

Debbie Young is a seasoned high school principal who has served as both a special

educator and assistant principal in an upscale school in the South. She is contacted by the parents

of Jonathan, a tenth grade student who is severely mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia,

and a seizure disorder. The parents of Jonathan request that he is under the constant supervision

of a nurse. However, Young refuses their request due to the substantial expenses that would be

bestowed upon the school and because she believes that the school is not appropriately fitting for

Jonathan’s needs.

As stated by Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes (2014), “courts have addressed the

constitutional rights of exceptional children to attend school and be classified accurately and

instructed properly (pg. 144).” Because the principal refused to provide Jonathan with the

nursing care he daily requires, his parents have the right to appeal her decision and file suit using

due process. If the case surpasses state jurisdiction, the Supreme Court must then rely on

previous court cases influenced by special need students to reach a verdict. Preceding court cases

like Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., Timothy v. Rochester, Board of

Education v. Rowley, and Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel Holland either

support the petition of the parents or the refusal of the principal. Based on these court cases and

our judgement as Nevada education law students, we must conclude whether the Supreme Court

would rule to approve or deny the request for Jonathan’s nursing care.

Plaintiff’s Defense

As indicated, the IDEA excludes medical services provided by physicians, but not health

services provided by nurses or other qualified medical professionals (Cambron, McCarthy, &

Eckes, 2014). Although the principal has rejected to incur Jonathan’s medical expenses, she must
ARTIFACT #4 4

remember that his parents are requesting the services performed by a specialized nurse, not a

doctor. The case of Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., involves a student

who severely damaged his spinal column in a motorcycle accident and was left quadriplegic and

dependent upon a ventilator (Osborne, 2014). To remain in school, the student needed nonstop

nursing care, but because of unwanted financial burdens, the school district claimed that the

services provided should be viewed as medical, even if they qualified as health services

individually. Although the Supreme Court recognized the financial worries of the district, they

rejected the burden claim because of the current construct of the law. Once they applied the

bright-line test, they ruled that any health services needed by a student to participate in school

had to be provided regardless of the cost or emerged financial impact upon the district (Cambron,

McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014). To defend their stance, Jonathan’s parents could ask the court to

apply this case so they can demonstrate that their request for health services must be lawfully

fulfilled because it is an obligation listed under the IDEA.

Furthermore, Jonathan’s parents could adopt Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire

School District to support their petition. In this case, Timothy was an extremely disabled child

with complicated developmental disabilities, spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, and cortical

blindness. Due to the severity of his disabilities and because two pediatricians stated that

Timothy had no educational potential, the school board concluded that he was not educationally

handicapped nor was he capable of benefitting from special education (Steketee, 2014).

Timothy’s parents disagreed with the school’s decision and their attorney filed suit in district

court, alleging multiple law violations on behalf of the board. As stated by Steketee (2014), these

violations prominently included the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (now

known as IDEA), and both the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth
ARTIFACT #4 5

Amendment. When the case was brought before the First Circuit, they ruled that school districts

must provide special education to all disabled children regardless of the severity of their

disability (Steketee). Similarly, Jonathan’s parents could dispute that health services must be

legally provided at school no matter how mildly or severely the disabilities affect his educational

ability.

Defendant’s Defense

To defend against suit, the school board could utilize Sacramento City Unified School

District v. Holland to their advantage. In this case, the parents of a mentally handicapped girl

named Rachel requested that she be included full-time in a general education classroom. The

school board believed Rachel’s disability would not allow her to benefit from full-time inclusion,

so they refused the parent’s request and instead offered Rachel a placement that divided her time

between a special education and general education classroom (“Sacramento”). Since the proposal

would require Rachel to transition between both classrooms six times daily, her parents were

unsatisfied and decided to appeal. They also enrolled Rachel in private school where she was

placed amongst general education students for the entire day. Once enrolled in private school, it

was then proved that Rachel did not cause disruptions in the classroom nor did she require the

constant supervision of the teacher. Additionally, it was noted that Rachel was making progress

towards her IEP goals. Once the initial appeal of the placement was heard by a state hearing

officer, it was determined that Rachel should have been placed in a general education classroom

full-time. (“Sacramento”). Dissatisfied with the outcome, the school district appealed to district

court, but they upheld the decision of the hearing officer. Regarding Jonathan, the principal

could allege that the severity of his disabilities does not allow him to be included in a general

education setting. Because he requires constant nursing care, he would be frequently removed to
ARTIFACT #4 6

receive those services away from the eyes of his nondisabled peers. For the most part, Jonathan

would spend a considerable amount of time in a special education setting.

In the case of Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley,

parents of a deaf student requested that the school provide a sign-language interpreter for their

first grade daughter (Cambron, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014). The parents were concerned because

the IEP only provided a general education placement with special instruction from a tutor and

three hours of speech therapy weekly. Without an interpreter, they believed their daughter would

only be able to understand about sixty percent of the spoken language in the classroom (Young,

2014). The school district denied the request because it was documented that prior to first grade,

Rowley had an interpreter for a two-week period where it was discovered that she did not need

interpretation services. Unhappy with the omission, the parents filed suit claiming there was a

violation of the EAHCA. On appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the ruling of the lower court

and inferred that “the intent of the act was more to open the door of public education to children

with disabilities than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside (Cambron,

McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014).” Ultimately, the court held that Rowley was receiving an appropriate

education and related services because she was performing better than average in class. In the

situation of Jonathan, the principal could argue that he is currently receiving a free appropriate

public education as mandated under the IDEA. However, if the parents requested additional

services that his current school cannot provide, they would have the option to transfer Jonathan

to a school that is better suited for his needs. The principal would then have the responsibility to

find Jonathan a school that could provide him with the nursing care he requires. This way, the

school district could assert that they presented the family with different options to fulfill the

procedures under the IDEA.

ARTIFACT #4 7

Assessment of Outcome

The Supreme Court does not disregard the legitimate monetary concerns of school

districts who supply assistance to the families of children with disabilities. However, because

schools receive funding under the IDEA, they must comply with one-on-one nursing care for

those students with critical conditions. Considering the outcomes of the four court cases

mentioned above, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Jonathan. To reach that conclusion,

they would apply Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., to indicate that

Jonathan’s needs are classified as health services, not medical. Furthermore, the Court would

also consider Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire School District to assert that all

students, including Jonathan, are awarded an education regardless of the severity of their

disability.

Conclusion

To conclude, we have learned that the rights of exceptional students have flourished with

the rise of legislative action. Thanks to the IDEA, all students diagnosed with a disability are

now ensured with a free appropriate public education. As previously announced, Jonathan is a

severely disabled student who requires the constant care of a nurse. Upon parent request, Debbie

Young, the principal at his school, denied Jonathan the health services he requires. To oppose her

refusal, the Supreme Court would use Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., to

determine that health services are mandated by IDEA, despite financial cost to the school district.

Additionally, they would refer to Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire School District to

determine that Jonathan deserves an education no matter how serious his disabilities are. If the

school district wanted to prevent a lawsuit, they could utilize Sacramento City Unified School

District v. Holland to demonstrate that Jonathan’s disabilities do not permit him to prosper from
ARTIFACT #4 8

inclusion in a general education setting. Lastly, the school district could adopt Board of

Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley to refute that although his zoned

school does not provide the nursing care he requires, the family has the option to enroll Jonathan

in a nearby school that does. Nonetheless, based on the current evidence and comparison to the

above-mentioned court cases, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Jonathan and demand

that nursing care be provided to him at no cost to his parents.

ARTIFACT #4 9

References

Cambron-McCabe, N.H., McCarthy, M.M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers and

Students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Gargiulo, R.M. (2014). Special Education in Contemporary Society (5th ed.). Sage Publications

Osborne, A. (2014, July 02). Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. Retrieved

April 23, 2018, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cedar-Rapids-Community

School-District-v-Garret-F

“Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. V. Rachel H.” (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2018,

from https://dredf.org/1994/06/13/sacramento-city-unified-sch-dist-bd-of-educ-v-rachel

h/

Steketee, A. (2014, August 14). Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District.

Retrieved April 23, 2018, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Timothy-W-v

Rochester-New-Hampshire-School-District

Young, G. (2014, September 23). Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School

District v. Rowley. Retrieved April 23, 2018, from https://www.britannica.com/topic

/Board-of-Education-of-the-Hendrick-Hudson-Central-School-District-v-Rowley