Portfolio Five 1

Portfolio Five

Kelsey A. Posatiere

EDU 210-1004

November 28,2018

College of Southern Nevada

Portfolio Five 2

Debbie Young, a high school principle and former special education teacher, was

approached by the parents of a tenth-grade student named Jonathan. Jonathan is not only

severely mentally disabled but also has spastic quadriplegia, and a seizure disorder. Jonathan

requires around the clock care by a specially trained nurse. Jonathan’s parents approached

Debbie Young because they would like their son to attend one of the schools in the district.

However, Young feels that it would be very expensive and that the school wouldn’t be an

appropriate place for Jonathan to attend. Young decided to refuse the parents request.

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garret F. (1999) is the first case that I will

be presenting against Debbie Young. In the case Cedar Rapids Independent School District v.

Garret F. (1999) Garret F. a 5th grade student in Cedar Rapids, Iowa has a severed spinal column

and is quadriplegic. Garret requires a ventilator and continuous nursing services while in school.

Up until Garret has entered the 5th grade his parents have provided the nursing services.

However, the parents are now requesting that the school district provides these services.

Unfortunately the school district denied the request. So Garret’s parents requested a hearing

under IDEA. The school district stated that IDEA did not cover “medical services”. However

because Garret only needed a nurse and not a doctor it fell under “related services”. The district

court favored Garret’s parents request. Like Garret, Jonathan needs around the clock care from a

nurse. Nurses are covered by IDEA’s “related services”. One of the reasons why Debbie Young

is refusing Jonathan’s parents request to allow Jonathan to attend her school is because of the

costs. However, the district is required to cover any type of related services under IDEA.

The second case that I will be presenting against Debbie Young is Mills v. Board of

Education of District Columbia (1972). In the case Mills v. Board of Education of District

Columbia (1972) seven children suffered from either behavior problems, being mentally
Portfolio Five 3

challenged, emotionally disturbed, and/or hyperactive. These seven children were kicked out of

school and denied an education because of these problems. The parents filed suit against the

board of education. The parents argued that the District of Columbia school board were denying

these students of their right to a public education. The court sided with the parents. This case

helps Jonathans parents based on the fact that Debbie Young is denying their son a free public

education based on his disability.

Beth B v. Clay (2001) is the first case that I will be presenting in favor of Debbie Young.

In the case Beth B v. Clay (2001) Beth B. is a student in the Lake Bluff School District. Beth was

diagnosed with Rett Syndrome when she was two years old. Beth B. can’t walk or communicate

other than with eye gaze. When entering kindergarten, in 1994, Beth was placed in to a regular

education class due to the urging of her parents. Beth stayed in a regular education classroom

until 1997. After spending three years in a regular education classroom, the district felt that after

reviewing Beth’s IEP that she would do better in an ELS program. An ELS program is a self-

contained Educational Life Skills program that works with small groups of students with

different forms of autism. When Beth’s parents found out that Beth would be placed in an ELS

program they denied the placement. Beth’s parents tried to fight the placement, however, it

didn’t work. The Seventh District Court sided with the district stating that “the school officials’

decision about how to best educate Beth is based on expertise that we cannot match.”

(Underwood & Webb, 2006, pg.155). Just as in Jonathan’s case, Debbie Young feels that the

placement that Jonathan’s parents want for him are not fitting of his needs. As an experienced

principle and special education teacher she potentially knows what is best for Jonathan in this

case.
Portfolio Five 4

The second case that I will be presenting in favor of Debbie Young is L.T. v. Warwick

School Committee(2004). In the case L.T. v. Warwick School Committee(2004) a student with

autism was entering a new school in Warwick, Rhode Island. When going over the new IEP the

district had placed the student in a self-contained classroom that used an educational technique

known as TEACCH. TEACCH stands for Treatment and Education of Autistic and

Communication-Handicapped Children. The student’s parents rejected this IEP plan. The

parent’s wanted the student to be placed in a class that used a technique called Discrete Trial

Training. The parents requested a due process hearing because the school was unable to place the

students in a class that used this technique. The First Circuit Court of Appeals found that the

autistic student was not eligible for this program. The Court also stated that “IDEA does not

require a public school to provide what is best for a special needs child, only that it provided and

IEP that is ‘reasonably calculate’ to provide an ‘appropriate’ education as defined in federal and

state law.” (Underwood & Webb, 2006, pg. 144). L.T. v. Warwick School Committee(2004)

helps the case for Debbie Young because she might feel that the school cannot provide an

appropriate education for Jonathan. The school also might not have funds to provide the

resources that the students need.

When it comes to the case of Debbie Young v. Jonathan, I am against Debbie Youngs

decision to deny Jonathan’s parents request for him to attend her school. I went back and forth a

lot when making my decision, however I feel that Cedar Rapids Independent School District v.

Garret F. (1999) and Mills v. Board of Education of District Columbia (1972) gave me the

insight that I needed to make the right decision. I feel that Debbie Young is denying Jonathan of

his right to a free appropriate public education. She claims that it will be too expensive to allow

Jonathan to attend her school. However, under IDEA the nursing services that Jonathan needs are
Portfolio Five 5

covered under “related services”. I feel that Jonatan’s parents have a strong case and should fight

for Jonathan’s rights to an appropriate education under IDEA.

Portfolio Five 6

References

Beth B. V Clay, (2001), No.00C4771, Retrieved Nov. 28,2018

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/211/1020/2572295/

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (1998), No. 96-1793, Retrieved Nov.

28,2018

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/526/66.html

L.T. v. Warwick School Committee, (2004), No. 03-1988, Retrieved Nov. 28,2018

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1241530.html

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, (1972), No. 1939-71, Retrieved Nov. 28,

2018

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/348/866/2010674/

Underwood, J., Webb L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers Concepts and Applications. Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.