Special Education 1

Edu 210 - Artifact #5

Special Education

Gemma Crowell

College of Southern Nevada

April 16, 2016

Special Education 2

Debbie Young is an experienced high school principal in the South. For many years she

has taught special education and has served as an assistant principal in an affluent school district.

Young was approached by a couple with a request to provide accommodations for their severely

mentally disabled tenth-grade child named Jonathan. The request involves specialty nursing care

as Jonathan has spastic quadriplegia and a seizure disorder. Young has refused their request due

to the high cost of such care and with a reasoning that the school is not the most suitable place

for Jonathan. The issue in this case is whether the principal's decision is valid or whether the

parents have a right to pursue nursing services for their child's special education.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F. (1999) is the first case to be

presented in favor of Jonathan and his parents. In this case, "a quadriplegic student, who was

ventilator dependent, required continuous one-on-one nursing services. The parents provided the

nursing services at school until the student entered fifth grade. They then requested the school

district to provide the services. The school district refused, and the parents requested a due

process hearing under IDEA. After an administrative law judge ruled that the school district was

required to provide the services under IDEA as a "related service", the school district appealed to

the district court. The district court granted the parents' summary judgment on the ground that

the nursing services were "related services" rather than excluded "medical services" (Underwood

& Webb, 2006, p. 154). This case serves to support the argument of the case of the parents of

Jonathan that they have a right to pursue nursing services for their child's special education.

Jonathan's nursing needs in the school are "related service" in the school and that which are

necessary in order for Jonathan to receive his special education instruction.

Special Education 3

The second case to be presented is Neely v. Rutherford County Schools (1994). In this

case, "Samantha Neely is a seven-year old child who has a rare condition that causes trouble

breathing. She underwent a Tracheostomy procedure to aid in her breathing. Samantha's parents

alternately attended school with Samantha to provide the care she needs. Due to the illness of

another child, the Neelys were unable to provide the services she needed. The Neelys petitioned

the school district to hire a full-time nurse or professional to attend to Samantha during the day.

The school district (deemed hiring a nurse expensive and) hired a nursing assistant instead to

provide the care. The Neelys objected to this care as inadequate to safeguard Samantha's health.

The court ordered the defendant to provide "supportive services required to assist a disabled

child to benefit from special education" "(Leagle, 2015). This case serves to support the case that

Jonathan's parents can receive nursing services for their child, and that these services are

"supportive services" and necessary for Jonathan's special education.

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982) is

the first case to be presented in defense of the principal and the school district. In this case,

"Amy Rowley has minimal residual hearing and is an excellent lip reader. In kindergarten she

was provided with an FM hearing aid which would amplify words spoken into a wireless

receiver by the teacher or fellow students during certain classroom activities. Amy successfully

completed her kindergarten year. In first grade, she continued to use the FM hearing aid, and she

received instruction from a tutor for the deaf for one hour each day and from a speech therapist

for three hours each week. The Rowleys agreed with the IEP but insisted that Amy also be

provided a qualified sign-language interpreter in all of her academic classes. The Supreme Court

ruled that the school has no clear obligation beyond the requirement that handicapped children
Special Education 4

receive some form of specialized education, an "appropriate education" given to the recipient of

some specialized educational services" (Wrightslaw, 2016). This case serves to uphold the

principal's defense about rejecting Jonathan's parents' request for his needs. The school is not

required to supply the best services as long as it provides "appropriate" special education.

The second case presented in favor of the principal and the school district is the LT v.

Warwick School Committee (2004). In this case, "the district had offered a self-contained

classroom that used a modified version of educational techniques; the parent rejected this offer,

preferring the use of a different technique. The Court found ruled that the IDEA act does not

require a public school to provide what is best for a special needs child, only that it is provided a

special education that is "reasonable" and "appropriate" as required by law" (Underwood &

Webb, 2006, p. 144). This case serves to uphold the principal's rejection of Jonathan's parents'

specific request for their child's special education. The school district is under no obligation to

provide than what was sufficient to meet Jonathan's needs. As his needs was beyond what the

school could provide, the principal is justified with this case about his suggestion to the parents

that the school may not be best suitable for his special needs.

My decision is in favor of Jonathan and his parents' case. The parents' argument that their

mentally disabled child Jonathan can receive related and supportive services for his special

education are supported by the cases of Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F.

(1999) and Neely v. Rutherford County Schools (1994). These two cases' ruling supported

providing "related services" the school already has in order to provide special education and that

these services are "supportive services" that aid and are necessary for the student to receive that

special education.
Special Education 5

References

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982).

Wrightslaw (2016). Retrieved at

http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F. (1999). Underwood, J. & Webb, L. D.

(2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. New Jersey: Pearson.

LT v. Warwick School Committee (2004). Underwood, J. & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law

for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. New Jersey: Pearson

Neely v. Rutherford County Schools (1994). Leagle (2015). Retrieved at

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19941739851FSupp888_11603/NEELY%20v.%20RUT

HERFORD%20COUNTY%20SCHOOL