PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 1

Portfolio Artifact #5

Matt Clough

EDU 210

11/24/19
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 2

A season high school principal, previous special education teacher, and former assistant

principal in an affluent school in the South, Debbie Young was recently approached by a parent

of a severely disabled tenth-grade student. The parent wanted to have her son, Jonathon, attend

one of the schools in her district. Jonathan has multiple challenging disabilities that require the

care of a specially trained nurse. Some of his disabilities include being mentally disabled, has

spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Debbie Young decided to refuse the parents

request due to the large expense and that the school would not be a suitable candidate for their

child. There are 2 sides to the argument for why Young was correct and incorrect.

Let's start with why Young is incorrect and why she should not have refused Jonathon.

In Underwood and Webb's book, ​School Law for Teachers​, they talk about related services and

how there are many services that the school must provide if the service falls under certain criteria

(Underwood & Webb, 2006, pp. 152-153). In ​Cedar Rapids Independent School District v.

Garrett F. 1999,​ a student required a nurse to be present at the school with him due to a

condition. The court decided that it was a related service if “the service can be carried out by

someone other than a licensed physician”. This means it can be considered a related service and

the school must pay for it (Osborne, 2019). In our scenario, Jonathon also has a specially trained

NURSE that is required to be present because of his condition. Since his condition, if left

untreated, could interfere with his special education. However, I believe that this can also work

in Youngs favor but we will come back to this.

In a fairly similar case, ​Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 1984​, a school

required a student to require a service called CIC in order to attend her special ed classes.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 3

However, the school’s IEP would not provide the service. The court concluded that, since this

service was REQUIRED to obtain her special education, it should be provided by the school. In

our case, Jonathons parents could argue that the service that the nurse provides is necessary for

Jonathon to obtain his special education.

But was Young correct? Earlier, I talked about how Young could use the nurse in favor

of her decision. To be considered a related service, the service “must be necessary for the child

to benefit from his or her special education” (Underwood & Webb, 2006). We are never told

what exactly the nurse takes care of. If the nurse is required for the student to recent or benefit

from his education, then the nurse wouldn’t be considered a related service. In, ​Dale M. v.

Board of Edu. of Bradley Bourbannais High School 2001,​ A student, who turned out to be a huge

disciplinary problem, was found to need a residential placement and the parents asked the school

to provide it. The court decided that the IDEA does not require schools to provide all programs

and services, such as providing residential placement, if it is not educationally necessary. Young

could use this.

Young could also argue that the request of the parents isn’t likely to provide sufficient

benefit to the student. In ​Board of Education v. Rowley 1982​, the court concluded that proposed

special education and related be reasonably calculated. Meaning they must be reasonably likely

to provide sufficient benefit for the students education ​(Mac, "Ten Supreme Court Special

Education Cases You Need to Know", 2019)​. If Young could argue that the services that the

services would provide aren’t reasonable to benefit his education, she could use that.

In all, this was the hardest decision I had to make this far. Usually I would be confident

in my decision in who was in the wrong. When I first read the summary, I thought Young would
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 4

be in the right. But after looking through court cases, I don’t believe the cases that her support

her scenario would be enough compared those against her. I found that ​Cedar Rapids

Independent School District v. Garrett F. 1999 ​to be the biggest case against Young because

they are so similar. My final decision is that Debbie Young was wrong to turn away Jonathon.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 5

REFERENCES

Board of Education v. Rowley 1982:​ Mac. (2019, August 6). Ten Supreme Court Special

Education Cases You Need to Know. Retrieved from

https://massadvocates.org/billsview/.

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. 1999​: Osborne, A. G. (2019, February

24). Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. Retrieved November 24,

19AD, from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cedar-Rapids-Community-School-District-v-Garret-F.

Dale M. v. Board of Edu. of Bradley Bourbannais High School 2001:​ FindLaw's United States

Seventh Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 19AD, from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1363362.html.

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 1984:​ Umpstead, R. R. (n.d.). Irving Independent

School District v. Tatro. Retrieved November 24, 19AD, from

https://usedulaw.com/350-irving-independent-school-district-v-tatro.html.

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). ​School law for teachers: concepts and applications.​

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5 6