Running Head: Education of Students with Disabilities 1

Education of Students with Disabilities

Amanda L. Laymon

College of Southern Nevada

Education of Students with Disabilities 2

Education of Students with Disabilities

A former southern special education teacher and assistant principal in a well-off, growing

school district, Debbie Young now works as a seasonal principal at a high school. The parents of

a seriously disabled tenth grade son, Jonathan, went to Debbie Young. They wanted to put

Jonathan in one of the school district's schools. Due to Jonathan's disabilities requiring consistent

care, Debbie Young refused. She claimed the school was not the proper place for Jonathan to be

with his spastic quadriplegia and seizure disorder. She also refused because of the extreme

expense it would be.

The first case in favor of Jonathan's parents is Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson

Central School District v Rowley (1982). In Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central

School District v Rowley (1982) a deaf student named Amy Rowley was attending regular

classes. During her year of kindergarten her school gave her a hearing aid that allowed her to

hear what her classmates and teachers were saying. The next year she was given the same device

along with an hour a day session with a deaf tutor and a three-hour weekly speech therapist. Her

parents wanted the school to go further and give her a sign language interpreter. When the school

refused, she filed suit. The courts held that the school is only required to provide a reasonable

educational benefit not the best suited education. Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson

Central School District v Rowley (1982) properly defends Jonathan's parents case, because the

school is required to give the reasonable educational benefits to the student just as the reasonable

amount of educational benefits the courts required (Underwood et al., 2006, p.144).

The second case in favor of Jonathan's parents is Cedar Rapids Independent School

District v Garrett F. (1999). In Cedar Rapids Independent School District v Garrett F. (1999) a

ventilator dependent quadriplegic student who required a one-on-one nurse was attending school.
Education of Students with Disabilities 3

The student's parents provided the care they needed through the first five years of school. When

the student reached fifth grade the parents wanted the school to take over and provide the

required care. When the school district refused, the student's parents ordered a due process

hearing. When an administrative law judge ruled in favor of the student's parents, the school

district appealed to the district court. The district court ruled in favor of the student’s parents as

well, stating that the nursing services were related services and should be provided by the school.

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v Garrett F. (1999) properly defends Jonathan’s

parents case, because just as the school of this student was provided proper related services,

Jonathan should be provided the same proper related services from the school district for his

education (Underwood et al., 2006, p.154).

The first case to assist Debbie Young in not getting charged for refusing Jonathan is

McLaughlin v Hold Public Schools Board of Education (2003). In this presented case, a Down

Syndrome student named Emma McLaughlin was receiving special education services from her

school. For Emma’s first few years of school her parents agreed with the school on her IEP

programs. After a few years, her parents began to disagree with the school’s proposal. They filed

for a hearing but it was postponed due to an IEP meeting. At this meeting the school along with

Emma’s parents agreed on the proper educational program for Emma to participate in. The

problem was that their neighborhood school did not provide it, and Emma would have to go to

one 7.3 miles away. The courts ruled in favor of the educational benefits and found that students

do not have to attend their neighborhood school if another one offers the needed program for the

student (“McLaughlin v Holt Public Schools”, 2003). McLaughlin v Holt Public Schools Board

of Education (2003) sufficiently defends Debbie Young’s case due to the student’s needed

program. Just as Emma had to attend a different school to get the proper education, Jonathan’s
Education of Students with Disabilities 4

parents need to find a school that suits his needed educational program (“McLaughlin v Holt

Public Schools”, 2003).

The second case to assist Debbie Young in not getting charged for refusing Jonathan is

Beth B. v Van Clay (2002). In this presented case, a thirteen-year-old girl, Beth, got diagnosed

with a female only disorder called Rett Syndrome. Rett Syndrome is a form of autism that causes

Beth to communicate through eye gaze. To say “yes and “no” she looks at the person and away

from them. Beth participated in regular kindergarten through second grade cases. At the end of

her second-grade school year the school recommended placing her in an ELS program where she

would be with other autistic students and well-trained specialty teachers. Beth’s parents wanted

to keep her in the regular classes and invoked a “stay put” provision (“Beth B. v Clay”, 2002).

The courts agreed with her parents until her sixth-grade year, after which, the school placed Beth

in a self-contained program. The courts ruled that to give Beth the proper education they had to

rely on the expertise that regular classes can’t provide (Underwood et al., 2006, p.155). Beth B. v

Van Clay (2002) sufficiently defends Debbie Young’s case due to the school’s educational

expertise. Just as Beth’s school knew what programs to put her in against what her parents

wanted, Young knew what Jonathan needed and knew the school couldn’t provide it.

My decision regarding this case is for Jonathan and his parents filed suit against Debbie

Young’s refusal, with the use of Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District

v Rowley (1982) and Cedar Rapids Independent School District v Garrett F. (1999). Although

Debbie Young knew her school didn’t have the proper programs for Jonathan, she should have

sat down with his parents and created an IEP program for him to find the proper school

placement. Under Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v Rowley

(1982) the school is required to provide a reasonable educational benefit for the student
Education of Students with Disabilities 5

regardless of the cost. Jonathan’s parents weren’t looking for the best educational program out

there, they just wanted some education, and Young failed to provide that reasonable educational

benefit for him as she was required to do (Underwood et al., 2006, p.144). Cedar Rapids

Independent School District v Garrett F. (1999) adds further clarification to the school’s required

services. The school is to provide the proper services needed to benefit the student’s education,

and Debbie Young failed to provide those services of constant care for Jonathan (Underwood et

al., 2006, p.154). Had Young provided the reasonable education and proper related services,

Jonathan would have had the proper education he was due. Young failed to do so and in turn is

responsible for refusing Jonathan the education he is required.

Education of Students with Disabilities 6

References

“Beth B. v Van Clay”. (2002). Leagle. Retrieved from

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

“Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v Rowley”. (1982). Wrights
Law. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm

“Cedar Rapids Independent School District v Garrett F.” (1999). Wrights Law. Retrieved from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm

“McLaughlin v Holt Public Schools Board of Education”. (2003). Find Law. Retrieved from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1253429.html

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