RUNNING HEAD: Portfolio Artifact #4

Springer, Miranda Portfolio Artifact #4 1

Portfolio Artifact #4
Miranda Springer
College of Southern Nevada

Springer, Miranda Portfolio Artifact #4 2

Portfolio Artifact #4
Debbie Young is a seasoned high school principal. She served as a special education teacher and
an assistant principal in a progressive, affluent school district in the South. She is approached by
the parents of a severely disabled tenth-grade student; Jonathan has multiple disabilities requiring
constant care by a specially trained nurse. He is profoundly mentally disabled, has spastic
quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. The parent's request is to have their child attend school
in a least restrictive environment. Young refuses the parents request due to extraordinary
expense and a view that the school is not the most appropriate placement for Jonathan.

1. Is Youngs decision defensible? Why or why not?

No, Youngs decision is not defensible because the school must provide a nurse to
maintain Jonathans health in order for him to attend school. In addition to the schools
obligation, the parents specifically requested that their son be in a least restrictive environment.
A least restrictive environment means, based on the language in IDEA, students with disabilities
are to be placed in regular classrooms, unless the severity of their disability requires them to be
in a more secluded environment (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 155). This is why placing
Jonathan in a specialty school is not an option because that would not be a least restrictive
environment per the parents request. Regardless of the expenses, a nurse must be provided
because if the caretaker were not attending to the childs needs, then the student could not
succeed in the classroom (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 153). The nurse is vital to Jonathans
progress in special education. In the case Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, a three-part
test determines if a school must provide certain related services to a special education student:

Springer, Miranda Portfolio Artifact #4 3

Test one determines if the child has a disability that falls under the IDEA that

requires the special educational plan;

Test two determines if the child will benefit from the related service in addition to

the special educational plan; and

Test three determines if the related service is too specific to the student (i.e. a
physician); if not, then the service must be provided (Underwood & Webb,
2006 p. 153).

This ruling came from the Irving Independent School District v. Tatro. Tatro was a special
education student with neurogenic bladder, and needed a related service for her medical
condition (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p. 153). She could not benefit from her special education
due to her need for catheterization every few hours throughout the day; the nurse replacing the
catheter was not a specialty nurse, less than one hour of training would qualify for Tatros
condition (Findlaw, 1984). It was the students necessity for medical monitoring that the court
decided that a medical service would be considered a related service if the caretaker was only
aiding what was already diagnosed or evaluated by a physician (Siegel, 2005, p. 2/7). Based on
the third test determined by the Tatro decision, Young must provide the nurse because the nurse
is not specific to Jonathans needs. The nurse is only a care-taker to ensure Jonathan benefits
from the program set up for his special needs because he falls under IDEA due to his major
conditions.

2. How do you think the court would rule in this case?

The court will rule in favor of the Jonathans parents because a nurse is a related service.
This is because of the ruling of Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F. Garrett
was also a quadriplegic student with additional problems, like Jonathan, that required a nurses

Springer, Miranda Portfolio Artifact #4 4

continuous aid in order for him to continue his special education (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p.
154). The U.S. Supreme court ruled that the medical service was necessary to Garretts
educational success, therefore a statutory obligation of related services that the school must
provide (Siegel, 2005, p2/7). According to IDEA, if the service is necessary to the childs special
education, then the school must provide, in this case, the service (as sited in Siegel, 2005, p.
10/9). Under the Garrett F. ruling, individuals that are in constant need of medical attention hold
the school responsible for a nurse or a qualified layperson (Findlaw, 1999).
Overall, by looking at the Tatro and Garrett F. cases, Young is obligated to give Jonathan
the service for three reasons. One reason is because the students parents requested their child be
in a least restrictive environment. The second reason is that Jonathans condition requires
constant monitoring of his health in order to benefit from the special education program. The
third reason is that the nurse caring for Jonathan does not need to be specialized; he only needs a
caretaker because anyone more qualified would become a medical service whereas a nurse is a
related service Jonathan has a right to under IDEA.

Springer, Miranda Portfolio Artifact #4 5

References
FindLaw | Cases and Codes. (n.d.). FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=526&invol=66
FindLaw | Cases and Codes. (n.d.). FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=468&invol=883
Siegel, L. M. (2005). Preparing for the IEP Meeting. The complete IEP guide: how to advocate
for your special ed child (4th ed., pp. 10/8, 10/9). Berkeley, CA: Nolo.
Siegel, L. M. (2005). Overview of the IEP and the Special Education Law. The complete IEP
guide: how to advocate for your special ed child (4th ed., p. 2/7). Berkeley, CA: Nolo.
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). Education of Students with Disabilities. School law for
teachers: concepts and applications (pp. 153-155). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.