Running Head: ARTIFACT #4

Christina Flatley
Artifact #4
Nevada School Law 210
Professor Herington
April 26, 2016

ARTIFACT #4

Abstract
This artifact will uncover the many rights a student with disabilities has which also covers
educational grounds. The plaintiffs are the parents of a young boy with multiple disabilities.
While the defendant is a tenured principal who used to work in the Southern school districts for
Special Education. This paper will look at cited cases and other laws for both sides. Then a
verdict will be in favor of one of the sides for the conclusion.
Keywords: disability, plaintiff, defendant, case, verdict

ARTIFACT #4

Debbie Young is a new tenured principal that recently moved from the more affluent
school districts of the South. In her past she has spent her time as a special education teacher and
an assistant principal. She had just met with the parents of young boy named Jonathan, who has
multiple disabilities. He needs constant care by a specially trained nurse in order for him to
function well in school according to his IEP. However, Ms. Young does not accept the parents
idea for reasons such as financial expense, and that their son should not be placed in public
schools. Jonathans parents therefore filed suit against her.
The citations that will support the plaintiffs side are the 1999 case of Cedar Rapids
Community School District v. Garret F. IDEA will also be a key factor in the Jonathans case
regarding a Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). There will also be a review of the general
guidelines and a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the plaintiffs side. As for the
defendant, the main citations for her argument will be the Least Restrictive Environment law
(LRE) and alternative placement.
We will first look at Jonathans side regarding the case of him and his parents. Jonathan
is an individual with multiple disabilities, and there are many cases that could support his right to
FAPE, or a Free Appropriate Public Education. The 1999 case of Cedar Rapids Community
School District v. Garret F argues about the use of free medical services to all students with
disabilities. The case happened when Garret F, a young boy, had a severed spinal column and
was paralyzed from the neck down. To remain in school, he required full time nursing care
(Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014).
The school district at first refused because the health services were too costly for them to
pay. However, the Supreme Court overruled this and made sure all appropriate services were

ARTIFACT #4

available to these students. Furthermore,the Court ruled that any health service a student may
need to participate in a school setting had to be provided, regardless of cost or resulting financial
impact on the district (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014). Jonathan may have multiple
disabilities, but it is required in his IEP that these medical services be necessary for him to
function at his best in school.
The next law that supports Jonathans case is IDEA, or Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. Originally known as the Education of the Handicapped Act, it was passed down
as a public law in 1975. A child must be qualified for being disabled in one or more the
following categories regarding intellectual disability, orthopedically impaired, physically
disabled, autistic, learning disabled, and many more. It is also important for the childs needs to
be correctly identified and for those needs to be properly addressed (Cambron-McCabe,
McCarthy, Eckes, 2014). Jonathan qualifies as this because he has one or more of these
disabilities. What this means is that he can easily apply for related services, yet still get the
education he needs.
FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) and LRE (Least Restrictive Environment) are
another case that Jonathans parents may cite. Whereas, all children aged three through
twenty-one with qualifying disabilities must be provided a free appropriate public education that
is made available in the least restrictive environment (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes,
2014). It is further stated that students need to be supplied with aids and services to enable them
to be educated with non-disabled children to the maximum extent possible. So it should be
necessary that Jonathan requires a highly trained nurse to tend to his physical needs due to his
spastic quadriplegia, intellectual disability and seizure disorders.

ARTIFACT #4

As for the defendants side, Principal Young can argue about the statements LRE, or the
Least Restrictive Environment has placed. For alternative placement there are multiple
alternatives for a child to meet their needs regarding their disability. She may also have concerns
about how the child may act if placed in a general education classroom with nondisabled peers.
According to Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy and Eckes (2014), Educational and non-educational
benefits for each placement should be assessed, including the effect the child with a disability
may have on classmates and staff members.
Furthermore, the LRE claims that certain students should not be placed in general
classrooms for students who have severe disabilities. It is stated that,General education with
supplemental aids and services represents the LRE for most children; for a few, however, the
LRE will be in a setting that is more restrictive (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014). It
wouldnt make much sense to put a child with a severe conduct disorder in with other children
who behave appropriately, right? The same is included especially when, children should not be
placed experimentally in the general under the guise of full inclusion and then provided
appropriate placements only after they fail to meet short-term objectives or acquire educational
benefit (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014).
As for the final verdict, it will be in favor of the plaintiff Jonathan and his parents. There
is no debilitating reason as to why Jonathan cannot be educated in a public setting. As long as he
can perform well in school with a highly trained nurse around to help with his physical needs, it
should be no problem. The school district can easily provide Jonathan with related services from
their finances. Principal Young was acting irrational on her part, and there was no reason for her
to try and exclude the student from public academic practices.

ARTIFACT #4

Resources
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2014). Legal Rights of
Teachers and Students (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.