1

Running Header: PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5

Aspen Marie Viola

November 24, 2019

EDU 210

Portfolio Artifact #5

Community College of Southern Nevada

 2
Running Header: PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5

The parents of a severely disabled tenth-grade student named Jonathan approached the

principal, Debbie Young, to see if their son could attend her high school. We are not sure why

they approached this principal, or why they wanted their son to attend a school in this district.

Perhaps they had just moved into this district. If so, the question is, is Jonathan entitled to attend

the high school in his district even though he has multiple disabilities (mentally disabled, spastic

quadriplegia, and seizure disorder) that require a trained nurse to be with him at all times.

Principal Young stated that if Jonathan was to attend her school, the school would incur

extraordinary expenses just by providing him a private, trained nurse. The First Circuit Court of

Appeals ruled that in LT v. Warwick School Committee that under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), a public school has to provide an IEP and reasonably

appropriate services, not particulate services requested by the parents (L.T. v. Warwick School

Committee, 2004). IDEA also does not require a school to provide the most services and

programs available. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Dale M. v. Board of

Education of Bradley Bourbonnais High School that the services were not educationally

necessary, only custodial (Dale M. v. Board of Education of Bradley Bourbonnais High School,

2001). With Jonathan, in order for him to attend this high school, he would need a private,

trained nurse to assist him with his physical disabilities, not his education.

Principal Young not only expressed the extraordinary expense it would be for Jonathan to

attend her high school, it would also not be the most appropriate placement for him just because

the high school was in his neighborhood/district. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools that a student could receive services outside of their

neighborhood and district if another school offered the services that the student needed
 3
Running Header: PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5

(McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools, 2003). In Jonathan’s case, Principal’s Young’s school

could not offer him the necessary services that he needed to obtain an education.

IDEA applies to children with disabilities. Children with disabilities fall under numerous

categories defined by the statute. Jonathan’s disabilities are listed under these categories, which

makes him entitled to services under IDEA. Section 504 applies to a student that has a physical

or mental impairment that limits any major life activity. Jonathan’s disabilities definitely limited

his life activity.

It may have been inappropriate for Principal Young to make this final decision on her

own without obtaining information from Jonathan’s prior regular education teacher, special

education teacher, and education specialist. In the case of Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified

School District, the court ruled that it is a violation of IDEA to make a decision without input

from the above mentioned members regarding proposed services (Shapiro v. Paradise Valley

Unified School District, 2003).

The Supreme Court ruled that in Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, medical

services are a related service that the school district was required to provide under the Education

for all Handicapped Children Act (“EHA”), and by not receiving the medical service the student

could not attend school and benefit from special education instruction (Irving Independent

School District v. Tatro, 1984). The District Court also ruled in favor of the parents in the case

of Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. The student’s health issues were

very similar to Jonathan’s. The student was also a quadriplegic and required a private, trained

nurse to assist him (Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F., 1999). An

administrative law judge ruled at the due process hearing that the school district was required to
 4
Running Header: PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5

provide the nursing service under IDEA as a related service, not excluded medical services.

When the school district appealed, the District Court also agreed.

Based on the cases listed above, the court would most likely find in favor of the parents,

requiring the school district to provide and pay for Jonathan’s private, trained nurse. In my own

personal experience from working at elementary schools that have a limited amount of funds for

their special education students, I feel that Jonathan would benefit by attending a school outside

of his neighborhood/ district that offers all the necessary services that will ensure that he obtains

an appropriate education.
 5
Running Header: PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #5

References:

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F., 526 U.S. 66 (The Supreme Court 1999).

Dale M. v. Board of Education of Bradley Bourbonnais High School, 237 F.3d 813 (7th Circuit 2001).

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

L.T. v. Warwick School Committee, 361 F.3d 80 (1st Circuit 2004).

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools, 320 F.3d 663 (6th Circuit 2003).

Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified School District, 317 F.3d 1072 (9th Circuit 2003).