Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​5

Artifact​ ​6

Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​5

Bethany​ ​Sell

College​ ​of​ ​Southern​ ​Nevada

Edu​ ​210-4001

May​ ​13,​ ​2017

Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​5

A​ ​seasoned​ ​principle,​ ​Debbie​ ​Young,​ ​with​ ​background​ ​as​ ​a​ ​special​ ​education​ ​teacher​ ​was

approached​ ​by​ ​the​ ​parents​ ​of​ ​Jonathan,​ ​a​ ​severely​ ​disabled​ ​tenth-grader​ ​who​ ​requires​ ​the

constant​ ​care​ ​of​ ​a​ ​specially​ ​trained​ ​nurse.​ ​The​ ​parents​ ​asked​ ​that​ ​Jonathan​ ​be​ ​placed​ ​into​ ​one​ ​of

the​ ​schools​ ​in​ ​the​ ​district.​ ​ ​Principle​ ​Young​ ​refuses​ ​because​ ​of​ ​the​ ​extraordinary​ ​cost​ ​and​ ​because

she​ ​feels​ ​that​ ​the​ ​school​ ​is​ ​not​ ​the​ ​right​ ​place​ ​for​ ​him.

If​ ​Jonathan’s​ ​parents​ ​wanted​ ​to​ ​press​ ​the​ ​issue​ ​or​ ​peruse​ ​legal​ ​action​ ​against​ ​Ms.​ ​Young,

then​ ​they​ ​would​ ​have​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Cedar​ ​Rapids​ ​Community​ ​School​ ​District​ ​v​ ​Garret​ ​(1999)​ ​on

their​ ​side.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​a​ ​ventilator​ ​dependant​ ​and​ ​wheelchair-​ ​bound​ ​student​ ​required​ ​the​ ​aid​ ​of​ ​a

responsible​ ​individual​ ​to​ ​help​ ​care​ ​for​ ​his​ ​physical​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​be​ ​present​ ​at​ ​all​ ​times​ ​during​ ​the

school​ ​day.​ ​The​ ​school​ ​declined​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​for​ ​his​ ​needs​ ​and​ ​the​ ​case​ ​was​ ​eventually​ ​brought

before​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court,​ ​which​ ​held​ ​“The​ ​"related​ ​services"​ ​definition​ ​broadly​ ​encompasses

those​ ​supportive​ ​services​ ​that​ ​"may​ ​be​ ​required​ ​to​ ​assist​ ​a​ ​child​ ​with​ ​a​ ​disability​ ​to​ ​benefit​ ​from

special​ ​education,"​ ​§1401(a)(17)”​ ​(Cedar​ ​Rapids​ ​Comm.​ ​Sch.​ ​Dist.​ ​v​ ​Garret​ ​1999).​ ​This​ ​applies

to​ ​the​ ​parents​ ​of​ ​Jonathan​ ​because​ ​even​ ​though​ ​he​ ​is​ ​severely​ ​disabled,​ ​the​ ​school,​ ​in​ ​congruence

with​ ​the​ ​ruling​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Cedar​ ​Rapids​ ​Comm.​ ​Sch.​ ​Dist​ ​v​ ​Garret​ ​case,​ ​and​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​the

IDEA​ ​the​ ​school​ ​district​ ​must​ ​provide​ ​what​ ​is​ ​necessary​ ​for​ ​their​ ​child​ ​to​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​learn​ ​to​ ​the

best​ ​of​ ​his​ ​ability.

Another​ ​case​ ​that​ ​supports​ ​ ​Jonathan​ ​and​ ​his​ ​parents​ ​would​ ​be​ ​Florence​ ​County​ ​School

District​ ​Four​ ​v​ ​Carter​ ​(1993).​ ​In​ ​this​ ​case​ ​the​ ​parents​ ​of​ ​a​ ​learning​ ​disabled​ ​student​ ​did​ ​not​ ​agree

with​ ​the​ ​IEP​ ​created​ ​for​ ​their​ ​child​ ​and​ ​asked​ ​for​ ​a​ ​hearing​ ​to​ ​discuss​ ​ ​if​ ​it​ ​was​ ​appropriate,​ ​in​ ​the

meantime​ ​they​ ​enrolled​ ​their​ ​child​ ​in​ ​a​ ​private​ ​school.​ ​After​ ​the​ ​educational​ ​authorities​ ​found

that​ ​it​ ​was​ ​appropriate,​ ​they​ ​filed​ ​suit​ ​claiming​ ​that​ ​the​ ​school​ ​had​ ​not​ ​fulfilled​ ​it’s​ ​duty​ ​under
Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​5

IDEA​ ​and​ ​asking​ ​for​ ​reimbursement​ ​for​ ​the​ ​charges​ ​they​ ​had​ ​incurred​ ​from​ ​placing​ ​their​ ​child​ ​in

private​ ​school​ ​while​ ​the​ ​matter​ ​was​ ​sorted.​ ​ ​The​ ​court​ ​ruled​ ​in​ ​the​ ​parent’s​ ​favor​ ​finding​ ​that​ ​“​ ​It

would​ ​be​ ​inconsistent​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Act's​ ​goals​ ​to​ ​forbid​ ​parents​ ​from​ ​educating​ ​their​ ​child​ ​at​ ​a​ ​school

that​ ​provides​ ​an​ ​appropriate​ ​education​ ​simply​ ​because​ ​that​ ​school​ ​lacks​ ​the​ ​stamp​ ​of​ ​approval​ ​of

the​ ​same​ ​public​ ​school​ ​system​ ​that​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​meet​ ​the​ ​child's​ ​needs​ ​in​ ​the​ ​first​ ​place.”​ ​(Florence

County​ ​Sch.​ ​Dist.​ ​Four​ ​v​ ​Carter​ ​(1993).​ ​This​ ​relates​ ​to​ ​the​ ​situation​ ​with​ ​Jonathan​ ​because​ ​if​ ​his

parents​ ​and​ ​the​ ​school​ ​cannot​ ​agree​ ​on​ ​an​ ​appropriate​ ​IEP​ ​for​ ​Jonathan,​ ​then​ ​his​ ​parents​ ​could

put​ ​him​ ​in​ ​a​ ​private​ ​school​ ​that​ ​better​ ​suits​ ​his​ ​needs​ ​until​ ​a​ ​plan​ ​is​ ​agreed​ ​on.​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​they

would​ ​not​ ​be​ ​unreasonable​ ​to​ ​expect​ ​the​ ​school​ ​district​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​for​ ​his​ ​instruction​ ​given​ ​in​ ​private

school​ ​until​ ​the​ ​matter​ ​is​ ​resolved.

However,​ ​in​ ​favor​ ​of​ ​Principle​ ​Young​ ​is​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Irving​ ​Independent​ ​School​ ​District​ ​v.

Tatro​ ​(1979).​ ​In​ ​such​ ​case​ ​an​ ​eight​ ​year​ ​old​ ​student​ ​with​ ​spina​ ​bifida​ ​required​ ​a​ ​CIC​ ​to​ ​be

administered​ ​every​ ​3-4​ ​hours​ ​to​ ​prevent​ ​kidney​ ​infection.​ ​Although​ ​the​ ​school​ ​made​ ​an​ ​IED,​ ​it

did​ ​not​ ​make​ ​provisions​ ​for​ ​school​ ​workers​ ​to​ ​give​ ​her​ ​CIC​ ​treatment,​ ​and​ ​her​ ​parents​ ​filed​ ​suit.

In​ ​this​ ​case​ ​if​ ​was​ ​found​ ​that​ ​“That​ ​court​ ​concluded​ ​that​ ​CIC​ ​was​ ​not​ ​a​ ​"related​ ​service"​ ​under

the​ ​Education​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Handicapped​ ​Act​ ​because​ ​it​ ​did​ ​not​ ​serve​ ​a​ ​need​ ​arising​ ​from​ ​the​ ​effort​ ​to

educate”​ ​(Irving​ ​v.​ ​Tatro​ ​1979).​ ​This​ ​case​ ​relates​ ​to​ ​the​ ​given​ ​scenario​ ​because​ ​Jonathan​ ​may

require​ ​a​ ​good​ ​many​ ​things​ ​that​ ​are​ ​not​ ​“related​ ​service”​ ​that​ ​Principle​ ​Young’s​ ​school​ ​simply

wouldn't​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​to​ ​him.​ ​Knowing​ ​this,​ ​Principle​ ​Young​ ​would​ ​have​ ​been​ ​correct​ ​in

refusing​ ​him​ ​admittance​ ​to​ ​her​ ​school.

​ ​Another​ ​case​ ​in​ ​favor​ ​of​ ​principle​ ​Young​ ​is​ ​that​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Hendrick​ ​Hudson​ ​Central​ ​School

District​ ​Board​ ​of​ ​Education​ ​v.​ ​Rowley​ ​(1982).​ ​In​ ​this​ ​case​ ​the​ ​parents​ ​of​ ​a​ ​deaf​ ​student​ ​asked
Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​5

that​ ​a​ ​sign​ ​language​ ​proficient​ ​interpreter​ ​accompany​ ​her​ ​to​ ​class.Despite​ ​the​ ​school​ ​having

already​ ​provided​ ​the​ ​student​ ​with​ ​a​ ​hearing​ ​aid​ ​and​ ​extra​ ​instruction,​ ​the​ ​parents​ ​filed​ ​suit

claiming​ ​that​ ​that​ ​their​ ​child​ ​was​ ​not​ ​receiving​ ​as​ ​good​ ​an​ ​education​ ​as​ ​she​ ​would​ ​have​ ​had​ ​she

not​ ​been​ ​disabled.​ ​The​ ​court​ ​found​ ​that​ ​“​The​ ​Act​ ​does​ ​not​ ​require​ ​a​ ​State​ ​to​ ​maximize​ ​the

potential​ ​of​ ​each​ ​handicapped​ ​child​ ​commensurate​ ​with​ ​the​ ​opportunity​ ​provided

non-handicapped​ ​children.”​ ​(Hendrick​ ​Hudson​ ​Central​ ​Sch.​ ​Dist.​ ​Bd.​ ​of​ ​Ed.​ ​v​ ​Rowley​ ​1982).

This​ ​case​ ​is​ ​relevant​ ​because,​ ​like​ ​the​ ​child​ ​in​ ​Rowley,​ ​even​ ​if​ ​Jonathan​ ​was​ ​admitted​ ​to

Principle​ ​Young’s​ ​school,​ ​he​ ​may​ ​not​ ​be​ ​given​ ​all​ ​he​ ​can​ ​to​ ​reach​ ​his​ ​full​ ​potential.​ ​The​ ​school​ ​is

under​ ​no​ ​obligation​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​what​ ​it​ ​cannot​ ​provide.

I​ ​think​ ​Principle​ ​Young’s​ ​decision​ ​is​ ​defensible​ ​because,​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​Irving

Independent​ ​School​ ​District​ ​v.​ ​Tatro​ ​(1979),​ ​the​ ​school​ ​is​ ​not​ ​required​ ​to​ ​offer​ ​services​ ​that

aren’t​ ​related​ ​to​ ​an​ ​effort​ ​to​ ​educate.​ ​Also,​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​Hendrick​ ​Hudson​ ​Central​ ​Sch.

Dist.​ ​Bd.​ ​of​ ​Ed.​ ​v​ ​Rowley​ ​1982,​ ​the​ ​school​ ​is​ ​not​ ​required​ ​to​ ​help​ ​Jonathan​ ​reach​ ​his​ ​full

potential,​ ​especially​ ​if​ ​it​ ​puts​ ​an​ ​undue​ ​(financial)​ ​burden​ ​onto​ ​the​ ​school.​ ​Although​ ​the​ ​legal

rights​ ​of​ ​Jonathan​ ​and​ ​his​ ​family​ ​are​ ​important,​ ​the​ ​most​ ​important​ ​thing​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case

is​ ​what​ ​is​ ​best​ ​for​ ​Jonathan.​ ​Principle​ ​Young​ ​has​ ​a​ ​background​ ​in​ ​Special​ ​Education​ ​and​ ​is​ ​the

principle​ ​of​ ​her​ ​school,​ ​so​ ​she​ ​should​ ​know​ ​what​ ​her​ ​school​ ​is​ ​and​ ​is​ ​not​ ​capable​ ​of​ ​providing

Jonathan.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​noted​ ​in​ ​the​ ​scenario​ ​that​ ​Jonathan’s​ ​parents​ ​were​ ​looking​ ​to​ ​put​ ​him​ ​into​ ​a

school​ ​in​ ​Principle​ ​Young’s​ ​district,​ ​not​ ​specifically​ ​Principle​ ​Young’s​ ​school.​ ​If​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a

public​ ​school​ ​in​ ​the​ ​district​ ​that​ ​can​ ​suit​ ​Jonathan’s​ ​needs​ ​then​ ​they​ ​should​ ​have​ ​him​ ​attend

there,​ ​if​ ​not​ ​then​ ​they​ ​should​ ​start​ ​looking​ ​into​ ​vouchers​ ​for​ ​private​ ​schools.​ ​Forcing​ ​a​ ​school​ ​to
Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​5

take​ ​on​ ​a​ ​student​ ​that​ ​they​ ​are​ ​not​ ​capable​ ​of​ ​properly​ ​sustaining​ ​the​ ​needs​ ​of​ ​would​ ​place​ ​a​ ​huge

and​ ​unneeded​ ​strain​ ​on​ ​the​ ​school​ ​and​ ​be​ ​greatly​ ​unfair​ ​to​ ​Jonathan.
Portfolio​ ​Assignment​ ​5

References

BOARD​ ​OF​ ​EDUCATION​ ​OF​ ​the​ ​HENDRICK​ ​HUDSON​ ​CENTRAL​ ​SCHOOL​ ​DISTRICT
BD.​ ​OF​ ​ED.,​ ​WESTCHESTER​ ​COUNTY,​ ​et​ ​al.,​ ​Petitioners​ ​v.​ ​Amy​ ​ROWLEY,​ ​by​ ​her​ ​parents
and​ ​natural​ ​guardians,​ ​Clifford​ ​and​ ​Nancy​ ​Rowley​ ​etc.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/458/176

CEDAR​ ​RAPIDS​ ​COMMUNITY​ ​SCHOOL​ ​DISTRICT​ ​v.​ ​GARRET​ ​F.,​ ​a​ ​minor,​ ​by​ ​his​ ​mother
and​ ​next​ ​friend,​ ​CHARLENE​ ​F.,​ ​(1999)​ ​No.​ ​96-1793
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/526/66.html

FLORENCE​ ​COUNTY​ ​SCH.​ ​DIST.​ ​FOUR​ ​v.​ ​CARTER,​ ​(1993)

No.​ ​91-1523
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/510/7.html

IRVING​ ​INDEPENDENT​ ​SCHOOL​ ​DIST.​ ​v.​ ​TATRO,​ ​(1984)

No.​ ​83-558
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/468/883.html

Cambron-McCabe,​ ​N.​ ​H.,​ ​McCarthy,​ ​M.​ ​M.,​ ​&​ ​Eckes,​ ​S.​ ​(2014).​ ​Legal​ ​rights​ ​of​ ​teachers​ ​and
students​.​ ​Upper​ ​Saddle​ ​River,​ ​NJ:​ ​Pearson.