Artifact #5 Free and Appropriate Education 1

Artifact #5

Student’s Right to a Free and Appropriate Education

Jennifer Ellis

College of Southern Nevada

December 1, 2018
Artifact #5 Free and Appropriate Education 2

A veteran high school principal named Debbie Young was approached by parents of a

severely disabled student requesting he attend one of the schools in the district. Ms. Young , a

veteran in the field of Education, who has served as a special education teacher and an assistant

principal in a progressive, affluent school district in the South, refused the parents’ request.

Jonathan has multiple disabilities that require constant care by a nurse. His disabilities include

mental retardation, spastic quadriplegia, and a seizure disorder. Because of the extraordinary

expenses and the view that the school is not the most appropriate place, Ms. Young denies the

parents request to allow Jonathan enrollment in one of the schools in the district.

The case of Beth B. v. Clay, 126 F.Supp.2d 532(2000) supports Ms. Young’s decision to

refuse Jonathan admittance into the school. In the case of Beth B. v Clay, the student was unable

to walk without assistance and communicated primarily by eye gaze. She also had the

intellectual capability of a young child. An IEP was established that required she be placed in a

self-contained program. Her parents opposed to the IEP and filed suit. The court ruled in favor of

the school stating that the school has knowledge regarding the best way to educated Beth that

they do not. Due to Jonathan’s severe disabilities, he may also benefit from a self-contained

program. Jonathan would receive the needed individual attention. This extra care would allow

him an appropriate education.

The second case supporting Ms. Young is McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools, 133

F.Supp.2d 994 (2001). In the case McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools, Mr. and Mrs. McLaughlin

and their daughter’s IEP team agreed that she would attend general education kindergarten, a

half-day program, with paraprofessional support. They also agreed that Emma needed a full day

program. Emma’s IEP team determined that it was necessary for her to be placed in a categorical
Artifact #5 Free and Appropriate Education 3

classroom in order to achieve her educational goals. Her parents disagreed and wanted her place

in a resource classroom. The main reason for their objection with the categorical classroom

placement was that it required Emma to attend a different school than her neighborhood school.

The court decided that if another school in the district offered the program the student needed,

then a student could attend a school outside of their neighborhood. Due to the severity of

Jonathan’s disabilities, Ms. Young does not deem school as the proper placement for him.

Schools must provide supplemental services in the regular classroom before moving the child to

a more restrictive environment, this does not mean that all students are entitled to a placement in

their neighborhood school (Underwood and Webb, 155). It would be beneficial for Jonathan to

be placed in an environment suitable to his needs.

The first case in support of the parents is Cedar Rapids Independent School

District v. Garrett F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999). In the case of Cedar Rapids Independent School

District v. Garrett F., the school refused to provide their quadriplegic son nursing services,

resulting in the parents requesting a due process hearing. The parents are allowed this right under

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court decided that the nursing

services are considered related services, therefor, under IDEA, the school district must provide

the nursing services. The proposed service must be necessary for the child to benefit from his

special education (Underwood and Webb, 153). Jonathan’s disabilities require continuous care

by a specially trained nurse. As required under IDEA, it is mandatory that the school district

provide related services to Jonathan so that he may receive a free and appropriate education. This

also makes the financial expenses required to accommodate Jonathan’s disabilities the

responsibility of the school district.

Artifact #5 Free and Appropriate Education 4

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (1972) is another

case in support of the parents. In Mills v Board of Education of the District of Columbia, Peter

Mills was a fourth-grade student that was excluded from school for being a behavior problem.

The court ruled that all students, including students with disabilities must receive a free and

appropriate education, regardless of cost to the districts. “Before the court decisions in the 1970s

case of Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and

Mills v Washington D.C. Board of Education, laws allowed the expulsion from school or failed

to provide education for children who were unable to benefit from regular education programs”

(Underwood and Webb, 141). Even though Ms. Young believes the severity of Jonathan’s

disabilities would place too much of a cost burden on the district he cannot be denied a free and

appropriate education. Jonathan’s parents can maintain that under IDEA, Jonathan must be

provided a free and appropriate education regardless of the cost to the district.

Jonathan’s nurse is consider a related service needed to obtain a free and appropriate

education. Just like the case of Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F., 526 U.S.

66 (1999). Due to this, the courts would rule in favor of Jonathan’s parents. Jonathan also has a

right to a free and appropriate education. Thanks to the ruling in Mills v. Board of Education of

District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (1972), combined with intense lobbying by special

education professionals, interest groups, and parents of children with disabilities, prompted

Congress to pass the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now known as the

IDEA (Underwood and Webb, 141). The guidelines under IDEA would allow the courts to

determine Jonathan’s rights and rule in his parents favor.

Artifact #5 Free and Appropriate Education 5

References

Beth B. v. Clay, 126 F.Supp.2d 532 (2000). Retrieved November 28, 2018
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1250134.html

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999).
Retrieved November 28, 2018 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1793.ZO.html

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools, 133 F.Supp.2d 994 (2001). Retrieved November 28, 2018
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1253429.html

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (1972). Retrieved
November 28, 2018 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/348/866/2010674/

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.