Running Head: Artifact #5 1

Education of Students with Disabilities

Cynthia Gubler
College of Southern Nevada
Artifact #5 2

Jonathan is a tenth-grade student who has multiple disabilities that wants to attend a

public school in his local school district. Jonathan has several severe disabilities including being

profoundly mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and also has a seizure disorder. Due to

his disorders, Jonathan requires constant care by a specially trained nurse. His parents meet with

Debbie Young, a high school principal, to discuss getting Jonathan enrolled. Debbie Young had

previously been a special education teacher and ended up denying the parents’ request to be

placed in the school district. Her reasoning was because of Jonathan’s disabilities, the school

was not the most appropriate placement for him and it would also place an extraordinary

financial burden on the school in order to accommodate him. There have been several court

cases that have dealt with similar issues with varying results.

In Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, the

Supreme Court set the precedent for whether or not a school district had met the requirements of

a free and appropriate public education. In this case a deaf elementary school student named

Amy Rowley had been receiving services including a hearing aid, a tutor, and a speech therapist

at her school. Her parents also wanted the school to provide her with a sign language interpreter

but the school district denied her request. When the case went before the Supreme Court they

ruled that the school district had in fact provided Amy with access to a free public education with

access to specialized instruction and related services that provided an educational benefit to her;

however, they were not obligated to provide her with full services but they were required to

provide her with access sufficient access to resources for disabled children. Since the school was

already providing her with adequate services, they were thus not required to provide Amy with a

sign language interpreter as well. This court case relates to Jonathan because it defines what a
Artifact #5 3

free and appropriate education would be and what services a school is required to provide a

student.

In McLaughlin v. Holt Schools Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

ruled that a student could be placed at a school other than their zoned school if that school

offered the program that the student needed. In this particular case Emma McLaughlin was a

kindergarten student with an IEP. During the IEP meeting the school and her parents disagreed

about whether she should be placed in a categorical classroom or a resource classroom. Her

parents felt that a resource class would be sufficient for their daughter while the district believed

that she needed to be in a categorical classroom. The school did not have the appropriate

categorical class that Emma needed so she would have to go to a school several miles away from

her house where they provided the necessary class. The parents did not agree with the school’s

decision and ended up suing them. The Supreme Court ruled that under IDEA the student is to

be placed in the least restrictive environment possible and that a student with an IEP must be

placed at their zoned school unless they do not have the categorical class; if the school does not

have the categorical class then the student will attended the next closest school that has the

necessary class. The Supreme Court has stated that since the school had determined that Emma

needed to be placed in a categorical classroom, it was acceptable to place her at a school with the

appropriate classes. This would relate to our case about Jonathan because if the high school that

he is attempting to enroll at doesn’t have the appropriate services then he should be able to enroll

at the next closest school that could provide for his needs.

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania was a court case that helped to set the precedent for students with disabilities to
Artifact #5 4

attend public schools. In this case PARC along with the parents of several disabled students,

who had been denied a free public education by the state of Pennsylvania, sued the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a law that had been used to keep students with disabilities

out of the public school system. The plaintiffs argued that all students, including those with

disabilities, would benefit from a free public education and that if they did not have access to this

education then their development would be negatively impacted. They also reasoned that

although these disabled children may not learn and develop the same way that other students

may, they would still benefit from these services. The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the

plaintiffs, stating that denying any student the right to a free public education was

unconstitutional. They furthered their ruling to also state that the state of Pennsylvania was

responsible for providing a free public education to all students and also that students with

disabilities were to receive the same level of education as those students without disabilities.

This court case’s precedent would indicate that in the case regarding Jonathan, the school district

is not allowed to deny a free public education to him regardless of his disabilities.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. set the precedent for whether

providing a one-on-one nurse during school was considered a related service under IDEA. In

this particular case Garrett, a fifth grade student, was a quadriplegic who was also dependent on

a ventilator; this meant that he needed a one-on-one nurse nearby to help with certain physical

needs while he was in school. His parents provided a nurse for him up until fifth grade when

they requested that the school district take on the financial responsibility of hiring a licensed

nurse full time. The district denied their request and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled in favor

of the parents. Their reasoning was that schools were required under IDEA to provide related

services that were deemed necessary for the student to benefit from special education. A
Artifact #5 5

previous court case, Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, defined which services were

considered relative and which were considered medical. In that case medical services were any

services that were required to be done under the care of a physician. The Supreme Court ruled

that since Garrett required only a nurse, it fell under related services and therefore the school was

responsible for providing it. In our case Jonathan is also a quadriplegic student whose needs can

be met through the care of a nurse which would be considered a related service and thus the

school would be required to provide one to him.

I believe that ultimately Principal Debbie Young’s decision to not let the student enroll at

her high school is not defensible. In Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School

District v. Rowley, the Supreme Court ruled that a school must provide a free and appropriate

education. By not allowing to Jonathan to enroll, the principal is making no efforts to provide

this student even minimal services and is thus violating IDEA. The decision in McLaughlin v.

Holt Schools Board of Education, allows a student to attend another school that could meet their

needs, but if this high school is refusing to meet Jonathan’s needs then other high schools would

have the same right to do the same thing and thus Jonathan would never be allowed to attend any

school. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania set the precedent that all students, regardless of disabilities, is entitled to a free

public education; this means that Jonathan would be entitled to a free public education at this

high school. The most important and relevant case for Jonathan is Cedar Rapids Community

School District v. Garret F. This case used former precedent from cases such as Irving

Independent School District v. Tatro that had defined the difference between related and medical

services. Schools are required to provide related services but not medical services; medical

services are defined as one’s that require a physician to perform them while related services can
Artifact #5 6

be performed by a nurse. Since Jonathan only requires a nurse to assist him, this would fall

under a related service that the school would be required to provide for Brandon. Since Brandon

is entitled to a free and public education and is eligible for related services such as a nurse,

Principal Debbie Young’s decision will probably be reversed.

Artifact #5 7

References

Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66, 119 S. Ct. 992, 143 L. Ed. 2d
154 (1999).

Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 73 L. Ed. 2d 690
(1982).

McLaughlin v. Hold Public Schools Bd. of Educ., 320 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 2003).

Pennsylvania Ass'n, Ret'd Child. v. Commonwealth of Pa., 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).