Amber Shewman
Abstract
In this paper, I will be discussing the scenario of Jonathan a student that has cerebral palsy
among other things. The principal denied the parents request due to the financial burden of
healthcare that would need to be administered and that the school might not be the
“appropriate” environment setting. I will be review cases that involve students with severe
In this scenario, we have Debbie Young, who has been a special education teacher and
assistant principal in a school district in the south prior to becoming a high school principal. One
day Debbie is approached by parents of a tenth-grade student named Jonathan, who has several
disabilities that require constant care by a trained nurse. Jonathan is profoundly mentally
disabled and suffers from spastic quadriplegia as well as having a seizure disorder. Principal
Young turns down the parents’ request because of the expense of having a student with these
conditions at the school and the view that the school is not the most appropriate placement for
Jonathan.
If we look at the possible outcome for Jonathan and his parents to prevail in this scenario
we could look at the case of Cedar Rapids v. Garret where we have a student who had a severed
spinal column and was paralyzed from the neck down. He like Jonathan required full time
nursing care and just like the district in this case and that of Debbie Young called to attention the
cost of the care that the district would be paying out. The Supreme Court acknowledged the
financial concern of the district, but due to the laws in place to require the Courts to reject the
undue burden claim. Overall the courts ruled, “That any health services a student may need to
participate in a school setting has to be provided, regardless of the cost or resulting financial
impact on the district (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014, p. 161). By this ruling we
can conclude a similar outcome in this scenario we have. Debbie Young made two reasons why
she denied the parents request. One of these reasons was the financial burden that it would inflict
on the district. We see in Cedar Rapids v. Garret this is not the correct way to look at these things
Currently all fifty states participate in the IDEA financial assistance program. All states
are required to address the needs of students with disabilities as stipulated in the Section 504 Act.
“Under this act states are required to identify, locate, and evaluate all resident children with
Eckes, 2014, p. 148) There are qualifications that are required for students to be eligible for this
program. Jonathan is qualified for these services since he has a health impairment that hinders
In the case of Timothy W. v. Rochester, you have a student that has similar condition as
Jonathan. Timothy and Jonathan both have spastic quadriplegia. This is a form of cerebral palsy,
which leaves you unable to control any or all four limbs. “The court was of the opinion that any
child with qualifying disabilities, especially those with severe disabilities such as Timothy, are
entitled to special education and related services” (Steketee, 2014). A student like Jonathan has
the right to be taught in the Least Restrictive Environment. Which means, “Children with
disabilities are to be educated with children who are not disabled to the maximum extent
After review the cases it is hard not to side with Jonathan and his parents. The IDEA Act
insures that a child with a disability will have the opportunity to receive a free and appropriate
education. The principal had no right to deny the parents their request. Every state must comply
with the regulations on administering an educational experience. All the cases helped to solidify
the regulations of how we look at children with severe disabilities. Regardless of the disability,
there right of being educated like any other child is the number one priority.
Artifact #4 Student Disabilities 5
References
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers
Steketee, A. M. (2014, August 14). Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District.
v-Rochester-New-Hampshire-School-District