Running head: Artifact # 4 1

Artifact # 4

Jordan K. Roberson

College of Southern Nevada

Artifact # 4 2

Abstract

In this paper. I will be discussing the case for article #4, by using court case to

defend both sides of the argument. The cases that will discuss pro the principal argument is

Unified School District v Holland and Hendrick Hudson V. Rowley. The cases that are against

the Principal argument are Cedar Rapids v. Garret and Timothy v. Rochester.
Artifact # 4 3

Artifact # 4

Jonathan is a severely disabled 10th grader who needs constant care. Jonathan has

multiple disabilities which include a mental disability, Cerebral Palsy, and spastic quadriplegia.

He requires a specialized nurse for him to attend school. His parents requested the specialized

nurse to the principal. Principal Debbie Young who was a former special education teacher,

denied the parents request for specialized care. Principal Debbie Young believed that the care

was too expensive and that the school was not the most appropriate environment for Jonathan.

This case involves The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA is a

fundamental law for all students in special education and helps them get service require for them

to succeed in school. IDEA gives students with disabilities free and appropriate public education.

According to Legal Right of Teachers and Student “When related services are found to be

essential elements of a free appropriate public education under the IDEA, they must be provided

regardless of cost.” (McCabe, 2014) This statement means that if the student needs are required

under related services that the school must fund it regardless of the cost. For example, if a

student needs transportation to school, the school is required to pay for busing.

The first case that is pro Principal Debbie Young is Board of Education of Hendrick

Hudson Central School District, Westchester City. v. Rowley. This case is similar because

parents requested additional service for a student with a disability. Amy Rowley was denied an

interpreter because according to Oyez.com “The Supreme Court held that the Act does not

require a school to provide a sign language interpreter to a deaf student when she is otherwise

receiving personalized instruction and adequate education.” (Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson

Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 2018) This means that schools can deny

student related service if they are already given adequate education and personalized instruction.
Artifact # 4 4

This means that if Jonathan was getting adequate education and personalized instruction was

beneficial enough for him not to require a nurse, then the school was not required to fund

specialized nurses.

The second case that supports Principal Young decision is Sacramento City Unified

School District Board of Education v. Rachel Holland. Principal young claimed that the school

was not the appropriate environment. Jonathan’s disability is restricting him from benefiting

from Least Restrictive Environment. According to Oyez “Children with disabilities are to be

educated with children who are not disabled to the maximum extent appropriate.” (McCabe,

2014, p. 154) Then he would have to be placed in an environment with general education

student. According to Disability Right Education defense state the following:

when determining whether placement in the general education classroom is appropriate

for a child with a disability: (1) the educational benefits available in the regular

classroom; (2) the non-academic benefits of interaction between a student with

disabilities and those without disabilities; (3) the impact of the student with disabilities on

the teacher and other children in the regular classroom; and (4) the cost of supplementary

aids and services required for mainstreaming the student.” (Sacramento City Unified Sch.

Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rachel H., 2018)

The school must determine if integrating the student with disabilities would be beneficial

to all students involved. The Supplementary aid cost and service out weight the benefit of

integrating Jonathan into the class. There would also be no educational benefit for Jonathan

being in a general education environment. It would be more beneficial to homeschool or seek out

a private school that can better accommodate his needs.

Artifact # 4 5

The first case that is against Principal Young is Cedar Rapids v. Garret F. Similarly, in

Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F the student needed specialized care and the

school would not accommodate. The school would not accommodate because of the cost.

According to Oyez “the Court held that if the services in question are "related" to keeping the

child with disabilities in school and able to access educational opportunities available to others

IDEA funded school districts must provide such services.” (Cedar Rapids Community School

Dist. v. Garret F., 2018) This means that the school must fund services to keeps students with

disabilities in school. Jonathan requires the specialized nurse so that he can take advantage of the

educational opportunities in school. Principal Young also made the claimed that the funding for

the specialized nurse was too expensive. Oyez.org states “potential financial burdens shall inform

any decision governing their provision. In the present case, the benefits of providing Garret with

his needed care outweighed the burdens.” (Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F.,

2018) This means that the cost service will be taken into consideration, but if the care for the

student is more beneficial than they are required to give the students care. Jonathan specialized

care is an important part of his right to education, and so the funding does not matter.

The next case that is against Principal denying student special services is Timothy v.

Rochester. Principal Young stated that the school was not appropriate for Jonathan. Princpal

Young statement implied that Jonathan would not benefit from attending the high school because

of his disability. In the case of Timothy, he was denied special education and related service

from his school because they believed that the would be no benefit of him being in special

education. (Steketee, 2018) The court decided that Timothy was entitled to special education.

According to Amy M. Skeetee, “the court explained that the fact that children may appear to be

“uneducable” does not bar them from the protections of the EAHCA.” This means that just
Artifact # 4 6

because of a student “uneducable” that they have a right to special education and related

services. Principal Young cannot deny Jonathan related service even if she feels that the school

environment is not appropriate.

The Principal’s Actions, in this case, were very hard to defend. All students are supposed

to be given free appropriate public education, and she was denying Jonathan one. According to

Encyclopædia Britannica “the court ruled that the EAHCA gives priority to the children with the

most-severe disabilities. As such, the court reasoned that the EAHCA adopts a “zero-reject”

policy concerning eligibility and that “capacity to benefit” from special education is not a

prerequisite for children to be eligible for services.” This means the predicted amount that the of

how much the student could benefit from special education does not matter. If the student

qualifies for IDEA, the school has to give special education and the related service so that the

student can attend school. The school was not valid when the denied Jonathan related services.
Artifact # 4 7

References

Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley. (2018, April

25). Retrieved from Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1002

Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. (2018, April 25). Retrieved from Oyez:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/96-1793

McCabe, N. H. (2014). Legal Rights of teachers and Student, 3 edition. New Jersey : pearson

Education inc.

Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rachel H. (2018, April 25). Retrieved from

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund: https://dredf.org/1994/06/13/sacramento-

city-unified-sch-dist-bd-of-educ-v-rachel-h/

Steketee, A. M. (2018, April 25). Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District.

Retrieved from Encyclopædia Britannica : https://www.britannica.com/topic/Timothy-W-

v-Rochester-New-Hampshire-School-District