Artifact 5 1

Artifact 5

Jacqueline Lucero Gutierrez

College of Southern Nevada

Proffesor Dr. Warby

July 31st, 2016

Artifact 5 2

Abstract

Debbie Young is the principal of a severely mentally disable student, Jonathan.

Jonathan’s disabilities make him require a nurse to help him in school. Young is an experienced
past special education teacher and denies the parents requests because it is expensive and the
school can’t help Jonathan either ways. Cases like Independent School District V. A.C Through
Her Parent and Irving Independent School Dist. V. Tatro, 1984 support the parents requests
because every disabled student is entitled to free appropriate public education and the related
services needed to help them succeed in school.
Artifact 5 3

A previously special education teacher and assistant, who is now a seasoned high school

principal refuses the requests of the parents of a special needs student, Jonathan. Jonathan is in

the 10th grade and is severely mentally disabled. Jonathan has spastic quadriplegia and a seizure

disorder. His multiple disabilities make him require care of nurse constantly. The parents have

requested that a nurse assist Jonathon but Young refuses because it is highly expensive and he

cannot get the most appropriate education in the school.

On the Pro side of the situation in the case of Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson

Central School District v. Rowley, 1982. This case makes it clear that schools need to determine

and accept what is appropriate to help disabled students. The case does explain clearly how the

word appropriate is used. To help Young in her case against the parents of Jonathan, Rowley’s

case states that “the Act's use of the word "appropriate" thus seems to reflect Congress'

recognition that some settings simply are not suitable environments for the participation of some

handicapped children” (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v.

Rowley). Young is experienced with special needs students and states that in her opinion, the

school is the not the most appropriate place for Jonathan. With that in mind, Young can fight to

state that in order to satisfy the child, he needs to go to a place that can better help him. The

school is not sufficient, nor “appropriate” for the needs of this Jonathan. Rowley’s case continues

to state that the "removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment

occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes

with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily" (Board of

Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley).Young states that

Jonathan cannot be appropriately attended at their school; regardless of the nurse, Jonathan’s free

public education is not suffice enough to help him learn.

Artifact 5 4

Another case pro side to Young is that of Beth V. Van Clay 65, 2002. In the case, the

parents of a disabled student wished to keep her in her current school instead of allowing the

district to move her to another school in which she would be able to attend a school that

specialized with special needs students. The court sided with the district because the specialized

school could better help Beth, since her school did not have the programs available to help her

have an appropriate education. The court states “we find that the school district's

recommendation to place Beth in an ELS classroom does not violate the IDEA” (Beth V. Van

Clay). In Young’s case, she states that Jonathan will not be well suited in their school. Likewise

the court states that “educators ‘have the power to provide handicapped children with an

education they consider more appropriate than that proposed by the parents”’ (Beth V. Van

Clay). Young is an educated personnel that has worked with special needs students and believes

Jonathan cannot be appropriately treated at their school. The case with Beth and Jonathan are

similar because they are both heavily disabled students that require much more attention need

than their school can provide. Like with Jonathan, Beth’s “placement shows a concern both for

her development and for keeping her mainstreamed, to an appropriate extent, with her

nondisabled peers”(Beth V. Van Clay). Because Young does show a concern in believing that

their school is not appropriate for Jonathan, she does not violate IDEA.

Con the argument, to support the parents request for a nurse is the case of Independent

School District V. A.C Through Her Parent, 2001. In this case, the parents of A.C tried to be

recompensed for their payments because of their child had apparent disabilities. The case states

“school district is obligated to pay for a residential treatment setting as a related service in order

to ensure that the child receives the educational benefit that Congress has declared she is entitled

to receive […] the student is entitled to compensatory education but not to compensation in the
Artifact 5 5

form of dollar damages” (Independent School District V. A.C Through Her Parent). In Young’s

case, she argues that the needs of the child are too expensive, but the Independent case states that

school are obligated to help these disable students. The case did not return money to the

students’ parents because they took her out school, but would she have had she stayed, they

would have. It was the schools responsibility to help the child. The case is the same with

Jonathan because he is heavily disabled; he needs to use his right to a free public education.

“Compensatory education is appropriate, but compensatory dollar damages that may or may not

be used to fund the education necessary for her and that do not amount to reimbursement are not

[…] Here, the District violated its obligation to provide a free appropriate education and must

provide an appropriate remedy” (Independent School District V. A.C Through Her Parent).

Likewise, by Young denying that Jonathan needs a nurse in the school is violation of his free and

appropriate education. Jonathan deserves his nurse to help him learn. His conditions can interfere

at any time with his learning, hence the nurse needs to be provided by the school to guarantee

that he can learn.

A final and strong case to on the con side of Young is Irving Independent School Dist. V.

Tatro, 1984. The court states that all related services in helping a disabled child are required to

be given by the school. In Jonathan’s case, his parents request a nurse because of his severe

medical conditions. The court states that ‘“related services’ for handicapped children to include

‘school health services […] which are defined in turn as "services provided by a qualified school

nurse or other qualified person […] ‘Medical services’ are defined as ‘services provided by a

licensed physician […] Thus, the Secretary has determined that the services of a school nurse

otherwise qualifying as a "related service" are not subject to exclusion as a ‘medical service,’ but

that the services of a physician are excludable as such” (Irving Independent School Dist. V.
Artifact 5 6

Tatro). In Jonathan’s case, his parents are requesting a nurse, which should fall under “related

services” as she is not a physician. When providing free public education to a child, schools are

required to provide all services related with the education of a disabled child. Jonathan is entitled

to a nurse, hence he is in public school and a nurse is a related service. The court continues to say

that “the obligation to provide special education and related services is expressly phrased as a

‘conditio[n]’ for a state to receive funds under the Act” (Irving Independent School Dist. V.

Tatro). Young mentions that it is too expensive to pay for Jonathans nurse, but because she is a

related service, the school will receive the finds necessary to provide assistance to Jonathan.

Young cannot violate Jonathan’s rights to a nurse because she is necessary to help him continue

his free public education.

When reviewing this case, it is hard to determine based on Debbie’s Young experience as

a special education teacher, if her point is valid enough to state that Jonathan cannot be educated

at the school. However, upon further review, regardless of Young’s experience, Jonathan is

entitled to a nurse and free public education at the school he is in. There are many cases that I

encountered with the same supportive details stating that disabled students should be

accommodated with the services necessary to provide them an appropriate education. The very

strong case of Irving Independent School Dist. V. Tatro proves that students need to be given

“free appropriate public education […] and related services” (Irving Independent School Dist. V.

Tatro). The parents request a nurse for Jonathan which falls under related services. As the case

states, ‘“related services’ for handicapped children to include ‘school health services […] which

are defined in turn as "services provided by a qualified school nurse or other qualified person”

(Irving Independent School Dist. V. Tatro). A nurse is highly qualified person that will help

Jonathan. The other case to help Jonathan and his parents is the case of Independent School
Artifact 5 7

District V. A.C Through Her Parent. In the case, they state that “compensatory education is

appropriate, but compensatory dollar damages that may or may not be used to fund the education

necessary for her and that do not amount to reimbursement are not. […] Here, the District

violated its obligation to provide a free appropriate education and must provide an appropriate

remedy” (Independent School District V. A.C Through Her Parent). Clearly with Jonathan, the

money required to help him is a compensation that must be given because he is severely mentally

disabled. The school can be given the funds needed because “the obligation to provide special

education and related services is expressly phrased as a ‘conditio[n]’ for a state to receive funds

under the Act” (Irving Independent School Dist. V. Tatro). There is no doubt, that Debbie

Young’s opinion is sufficient enough to deny Jonathan the necessary help and funds needed to be

given his education. As the cases state, every disable student is entitled to free appropriate public

education and the related services needed to help him succeed in high school.
Artifact 5 8

References

Beth V. Van Clay 65. (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-

circuit/1250134.html

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. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2016, from https://www.law.

cornell.edu/ supreme court/text/458/176

Irving Independent School Dist. V. Tatro. (n.d.). Retrieved July 27, 2016, from http://caselaw.

findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/468/883.html

ISD No. 284 Wayzata Area Schools v. A. C. (8th Cir. 2001). (n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2016,

from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/2001/8th.isd284.ac.htm