Running head PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 1

Portfolio Artifact assignment #5

Pier A. Shoates
EDU 210
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 2

Can a Principal refuse to allow a student with a disability admittance to a public-school

education? In this scenario, a veteran special education teacher and principal, Debbie Young

works at a prestigious school district down South. Jonathan is a 10th grade student with multiple

disabilities. He requires the constant care of a specially trained nurse. He is profoundly mentally

disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has frequent seizures. His parents want him to attend a

school in the school district, but Ms. Young refuses based on the enormous costs and her opinion

that the school is not the right environment for Jonathan.

One court case that supports the parents is Cedar Rapids Community School District v.

Garret. (1999) In this case the student, Garret F. was wheelchair bound and ventilator dependent.

He needed the continual assistance of a nurse to assist him during school hours with the

ventilator. The school declined to provide financial assistance stating that it was not obligated to

provide one on one nursing care. An Administrative law judge at an Iowa school board hearing

decided that under IDEA, the school was financially obligated to provide school health services

that could be provided by a qualified school nurse or other qualified school personnel. But not

any medical service which had to be provided by a physician. This case relates to the scenario

that Ms. Young has to allow Jonathan to attend school and provide finances for the care of a one

on one nurse.

Another court case that supports the parents is Irving Independent School District v.

Tatro. (1984) In this case an eight-year-old girl with spina bifida could not keep control of her

bladder and had to be catharized every 3-4 hours in a minor procedure called CIC. This

procedure takes a few minutes and can be performed by a layperson with under an hour worth of

training. The school district received federal funding under the education of the handicapped act

to provide free appropriate public education including related services. The school made no
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 3

provision to provide CIC. The parents sued stating that CIC was a related service and was in the

child’s IEP. The court upheld the decision stating that the school was in violation of Act 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act. This case is relevant to Jonathan’s case because it clearly states that

related services were also withheld from him.

One case in support of Ms. Young is Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v.

Rowley (1982). In this case a child with only minimal hearing was furnished with a hearing aid

by school officials and provided with a special tutor as per the provisions of the IEP. The parents

stated that the child was not learning at her full potential and needed a sign language interpreter

to accompany her to all her classes. The court upheld that the Education of the Handicapped Act

was upheld when the school provided the hearing device and the extra tutoring and appropriate

education did not require that they provide a sign language interpreter. This case can be applied

to the case because the school may be able to meet some of the needs of Jonathan but may not

have to provide for those that are medical services.

My opinion of the scenario is that the parents are right, and the school should provide

Jonathan with a one on one nurse as a related service to provide appropriate education for him.

Backed up by the court case Cedar Rapids Community School District v Garret (1999) because it

clearly states that the school should employ qualified personnel to provide related services for

appropriate education.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 4

References

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984)

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999)

Hendrick Hudson Board of Education v. Rowley 485 U.S. 176, (1982)