Running head: Students with Disabilities 1

Education of Students with Disabilities

Arleesia Herrera

College of Southern Nevada

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 2

Education of Students with Disabilities

Jonathan is a severely disabled tenth-grade student. His multiple disabilities spastic

quadriplegia, a seizure disorder and he is profoundly mentally disabled. He requires constant

specialized care from a nurse. His parents looked to enroll him in school. Debbie Young, the high

school principal, has experience as both a special education teacher and assistant principal at the

progressive and affluent school district she works in. Upon hearing the request for enrollment by

Jonathan’s parents, Principal Young stated that the school would not be the best place to place

Jonathan and the expense for his care would be to great. She refused the request for enrollment.

Free Education

Under IDEA, all students with disabilities have the right to a free and appropriate public

education. The school district has an obligation to educate all students who walk through its’

doors regardless of ability. In the case of Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education (2004)

several points of contention are addressed for the Deal family. Two that are relevant to Jonathans

case are access to education and that education being in the least restrictive environment, which

are rights given to students through IDEA. Zachary Deal, an autistic Kindergarten student, was

attending school in the Hamilton District. At several concurrent IEP meetings the school he

attended refused to provide Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Teaching Strategies that the

Deal’s had been using at home with great success. The school also only allowed Zachary to be in

a regular class three times a week for fifteen minutes and eat lunch with the regular class “as

tolerated” ("Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education ", 2004). The rest of his time spent in

school was in a restrictive classroom environment. After making several appeals to the school to

include ABA therapy and increase time spent with other children, the Deal’s removed him from

the school and placed him in a private school. The private school, Primrose School, more than
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 3

double his time spent with other children and provided more comprehensive services for

Zachery. The Deal’s brought suit to the Hamilton School District for reimbursement for their

costs of providing ABA therapy in their home while Zachery was still attending school within

their district and the cost of sending him to a private school ("Deal v. Hamilton County Board of

Education ", 2004).

While the court did not find that the Hamilton school district should pay for Zachary’s

time at the Primrose School, they did find the school reimburse the Deals for the ABA therapy

they provide to their son in their home and the school should provide that therapy upon his return

to the Hamilton School district ("Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education ", 2004). This

was based on the grounds that the school did not provide a free and appropriate education, as

ABA therapy would have been most appropriate for Zachary. The court also found that the

school district failed to provide the least restrictive learning environment available to Zachary

("Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education ", 2004). This means a couple things for Jonathan

as he seeks enrollment into Principal Youngs’ school. First, school are required to provide a free

and appropriate public education. Secondly, school need to provide that education in the most

least restrictive environment available. If attending Principal Young school is the least restrictive

environment for Jonathan, then that is where he needs to go.

The next case addresses cost of students with disabilities attending public schools. In the

case of Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret Charlene, the school district and

parents disagreed on who was responsible for Garret’s care during the school day. Due to a

motor cycle accident at age four, Garret Charlene was quadriplegic and ventilator dependent. He

required a specialized nursing attendant to perform several tasks including “urinary bladder

catheterization about once a day, suctioning of his tracheostomy as needed, food and drink on a
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 4

regular schedule, repositioning, ambu bag administration if the ventilator malfunctions,

ventilator setting checks, observation for respiratory distress or autonomic hyperreflexia, blood

pressure monitoring, and bowel disimpactation in cases of autonomic hyperreflexia” ("Cedar

Rapids Community School District v. Garret Charlene", 1997). Between grades kindergarten to

fourth-grade Garrets parents had made an agreement with the school to pay for the nursing

attendant. At the start of his fifth-grade year, Garret’s parents had asked the school to pay for his

care during school hours. The school refused, stating they are not responsible for students

continuous one-on-one nursing care. However, the courts disagreed, the school is in fact

responsible under IDEA. Under IDEA the school must provide an education and related services.

Garret’s parents argued that nursing care is a related service, without it Garret could not benefit

from getting an education ("Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret Charlene",

1997). The school contended that specialized nursing care was a “medical service”. The courts

concluded that “services provided by a physician (other than for diagnostic and evaluation

purposes) are subject to the medical services exclusion, but services that can be provided by a

nurse or qualified layperson are not” ("Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret

Charlene", 1997). For Jonathan and his parents this means the school cannot turn him away

because of the cost, they have the responsibility to pay for Jonathan’s nursing care during school.

Nor can they collect federal funds for IDEA if they are not providing both education and related

services ("Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret Charlene", 1997).

Appropriate Education

In defense of Principal Young is the case of Burlington School Committee v.

Massachusetts Department of Education. Principal Young argued that her school is not the best

place to serve the needs of Jonathan. The ruling in this case conclude that students have the right
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 5

to a free and appropriate public education, if the public school cannot provide an appropriate

education then they are to pay for a private institution that can ("Burlington School Committee v.

Massachusetts Department of Education", 1985). With this in mind, Young can suggest private

schools that can provide an appropriate education at the expense of the public school system.

Ruling

While principal Young does have some discretion over which students can attend her

school, she also the responsibility to provide a free appropriate education. The main

contradictory point is while Jonathans specialized care is costly, her school district is in an

affluent area and has access to funding other school districts do not. That being said, her school

district may be the only district that actually has the resources to provide an appropriate

education. Next, Jonathan should also be provided the least restrictive environment and have as

many social opportunities as possible. In specialized schools, this may not be possible.
 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 6

References

Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of Education (April 29, 1985).

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret Charlene (United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit. February 7, 1997).

Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education (United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

December 16, 2004).

e.