Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Amanda L. Laymon
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
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
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
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
References
“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.