Running head: Portfolio Artifact #5 Brown 1

Taylor Brown
May 5, 2019
EDU 210
Portfolio Artifact #5
Portfolio Artifact #5 Brown 2

Parents of Jonathan, a severely disabled tenth-grade student with spastic quadriplegia,

and a seizure disorder that requires around the clock care from a specially trained nurse, has

made a request to Debbie Young, the high-school principal, to have their son attend one of the

schools in the district. With experience serving as a special education teacher, and many years

under her as assistant principal to now principal, Young made the decision to decline the parents

request based on the extraordinary expenses that would come with having Jonathan as a student;

along with a view that the school wouldn’t be an appropriate placement for him.

The first case I will be presenting in favor of Principal Debbie Young’s decision to

decline Jonathan’s parents’ request regarding him attending the schools in the district is, Board

of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District VS. Rowley. In this case, a deaf student

named Amy Rowley was attending regular classes successfully with the assistance of the FM

wireless hearing aid provided to her, along with the instruction she received from a tutor for one

hour per day and speech therapy for three hours each week. Rowley’s parents then came to the

school and asked that she be provided with a sign-language interpreter instead of the other forms

of assistance identified in her individualized education plan.

When the school declined this motion, Rowley’s parents sought review of the decision

arguing that utilizing the hearing aid without an interpreter only granted Rowley about sixty-

percent of the spoken language in the classroom. The school then brought in an examiner, who

confirmed with the school that Rowley’s use of an interpreter was unnecessary. This decision

was the affirmed by the New York commissioner of education. Following this, Rowley’s parents

filed suit against the school district in U.S district court. The Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit affirmed the judgement stating Rowley was not receiving a “free and public education.”

The school district then appealed to the Supreme Court who ultimately decided to reverse the
Portfolio Artifact #5 Brown 3

decision of the Second Circuit stating that they had “inappropriately ignored the definition of

‘free and appropriate education’ provided in the EHA itself.” Board of Education of Hendrick

Hudson Central School District VS. Rowley sufficiently backs up Principal Debbie Young’s

decision to decline Jonathan from attending one of the schools in the district based on the

definition of a free and appropriate education.

The second case presented in favor of Principal Debbie Young’s decision to deny

Jonathan’s admission to one of the schools in the district is, Endrew F. VS. Douglas County

School District. In this case, a student with autism was receiving annual IEPs from the Douglas

County School District. After reaching the fifth grade, Endrew’s parents declared that his

progress was at a stand still and decided to enroll him in a private school. The school district then

put together a new IEP for fifth grade and after Endrew’s parents went over it, they decided it

wasn’t much of a change from his previous IEP. Therefore, Endrew’s parents sought

reimbursement for his tuition and the school board denied the request. Following the denial,

Endrew’s parents filed suit where the district court and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The rationale

behind the court’s decision was Endrew’s IEPs had enabled him to make at the very least, some

progress; the court reasoned that this was enough to prove that the most recent IEP proposed

would offer the same benefits. This case affirms Debbie Young’s decision of not allowing

Jonathan to attend one of the schools in the district because the school isn’t a right fit for a

student with such profound disabilities.

The first case presented against Principal Debbie Young’s decision to deny student

Jonathan from attending one of the schools in the district is, Cedar Rapids Independent School

District VS. Garrett F. In this case, student Garrett F, attends regular classes at Cedar Rapids

Community School District. Though Garrett is paralyzed from the neck down, he can speak and
Portfolio Artifact #5 Brown 4

control his motorized wheelchair. However, Garrett is ventilator dependent which requires an

individual nearby to attend to his physical needs while he is on school grounds. Garrett’s mother

has requested that the district take on the financial responsibility for the health care services

Garrett needs while he is at school.

The school district denied this request resulting in Garrett’s mother requesting a hearing

before the Iowa Department of Education. The Administrative Law Judge determined that

“federal law requires that children with a variety of health impairments be provided with special

education and related services when their disabilities adversely affect their academic

performance.” Thus, the court sided with Garrett’s mother and reached the conclusion that the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act required the school district to take financial

responsibility for every service in dispute, including the continuous nursing services Jonathan

needs. This case affirms that Principal Debbie Young’s decision to deny admittance to Jonathan

goes against federal law and therefore is unjust.

The second case I will be presenting against Principal Debbie Young’s refusal to allow

Jonathan to attend one of the schools in the district is, Irving Independent School District VS.

Tatro. In this case, eight-year-old Amber Tatro is a student who was born with spina bifida. This

defect resulted in her need for a Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC) services in order to

attend special education classes. Amber’s IEP made no provision that school personnel would be

required to administer services. After attempting to obtain the necessary services and exhausting

all avenues, Amber’s parents filed suit against the school district. The court concluded that

provision of CIC services was categorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

as a “related service.” The rationale behind the decision is that without this service, Amber
Portfolio Artifact #5 Brown 5

would not be able to attend school. This case affirms that Principal Debbie Young’s decision to

deny Jonathan from attending one of the schools in the district is unmerited.

In conclusion, my decision is in favor of Jonathan and his parents moving forward with a

suit against the school district for denying Jonathan’s rights under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act. I conclude that Principal Debbie Young needs to reevaluate her

decision and come to different conclusion based on Jonathan’s rights as a student with a

disability. The school district should be held responsible for the necessary care required by

Jonathan’s disability. My decision is in favor of, Cedar Rapids Independent School District VS.

Garrett F and Irving Independent School District VS. Tatro.

References:

Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://massadvocates.org/rowley/

Britannica, T. E. (2018, June 21). Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central

School District v. Rowley. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Board-of-

Education-of-the-Hendrick-Hudson-Central-School-District-v-Rowley

Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. ex rel. Charlene F., 526 U.S. 66

(1999). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://massadvocates.org/cedarrapids/

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE–1, 580 U.S. ___ (2017). (n.d.).

Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/580/15-827/