Use the following court case to Do a little research on that case. submit an entry explaining (a) the question that was being decided, (b) the ruling of the court, and (c ) why this case is important to you. About the question being decided- any court case is based on a particular situation and a question being asked about the situation. In your entry specify the situation being considered and the question being asked. About the ruling of the court- be specific about what the court decided in terms of the question and next steps. You may have to do a little digging for the exact question and decision. You can search for the court cases by name. Remember to provide detail of your thinking.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, the parents argued that their child with autism did not make measurable progress on his IEP goals and that the school failed to address his worsening behavior problems. The parents advocated for a heightened ‘meaningful educational benefit’ standard. On December 22, 2015, after an adverse decision from a federal appeals court, the parents requested that the Supreme Court resolve their educational benefit question. On September 29, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Below is an example of an Exemplar Post that you should use for reference of what is needed in this post
The court case that I chose is the Cedar Rapids v. Garret F. case (1999). This case is about a student named Garret in the Cedar Rapids Community School District. He attended regular classes in a typical school program and he did very well academically. When Garret was four, his spinal column became severed after a motorcycle accident. Due to the incident, Garret became paralyzed from the neck down and relied on a ventilator. From kindergarten to fourth grade Garret’s parents used settlement proceeds from his accident and insurance to employ a licensed nurse. However, in 1993, Garret’s mother requested the school district to pay for the health care services that Garret would require throughout the school day. The district denied the mothers request, stating that it was not legally obligated to provide one-on-one nursing services throughout Garret’s school day. The question that comes into play in this case is whether or not the definition of “related services” in section §1401(a)(17) of the IDEA actually requires a public school district to provide a student who is ventilator-dependent with one-on-one nursing services throughout the students’ school day.
After Garret was denied one-on-one nursing services throughout the school day by the school district, his mother requested a hearing before the Iowa Department of Education under the IDEA. An administrative law judge (ALJ) stated that the federal regulations distinguish between “school health services” and “medical services” and that “the distinction in the regulations does not just depend on “the title of the person providing the service”; instead, the “medical services” exclusion is limited to services that are “in the special training, knowledge, and judgment of a physician to carry out.” (Wrightslaw section I) Because of this distinction, the ALJ ultimately decided that the school board was responsible for providing Garret with one-on-one nursing services. The school district challenged the ALJ in Federal District Court, however the court approved the ALJ’s IDEA ruling. The Court of Appeals then confirmed the ALJ’s decision, stating that “the services of a physician (other than for diagnostic and evaluation purposes) are subject to the medical services exclusion, but services that can be provided in the school setting by a nurse or qualified layperson are not.” (Wrightslaw section I) The case was then heard before the Supreme Court. Due to the court’s decision in Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro, the school board did not challenge the fact that Garret needed medical services, but rather challenged the cost of the services and whether or not the care was short term or long term. However, the court rejected the districts cost-based standard stating that “accepting the District’s cost-based standard as the sole test for determining the scope of the provision would require us to engage in judicial lawmaking without any guidance from Congress. It would also create some tension with the purposes of the IDEA.” (Wrightslaw section II) The court stated that the congress intended for the IDEA “to open the door of public education” to all qualified children and “require[d] participating States to educate handicapped children with non-handicapped children whenever possible.” (Wrightslaw section II) Therefore, under the statute, purposes of the IDEA and through the court’s precedent, the court stated that the district must fund such “related services” in order to help guarantee that students such as Garret are integrated into the public schools.
This case is important to me because not only did I work with students at a school who had intellectual and developmental disorders, but I also worked with medically compromised students who had nurses provided to them throughout the day. Without the nurses there with them, it would’ve been impossible for them to learn. A few of the students I worked with were on oxygen, had feeding tubes, and seizures repeatedly throughout the day. Without access to nurses, some of the students I worked with would not have been able to be at school safely and have the access to education, as it is a fundamental right. Without nurses, other students would not be in an environment they could learn in, as it would be very difficult for any child to learn without being able to go to the bathroom, eating, comfort etc. Nurses are crucial for some students throughout the day. If the required nurses aren’t given to the students that need them, the students would not have the same educational right as other students. These students deserve the same access as all students deserve through FAPE, and if they did not have nurses throughout the day, some would not be learning in an environment best for learning, and others may not be learning at all due to the severity of their condition. Nurses are a universal right to these students and their education.
Cedar Rapids Comm Sch Dist v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999) – Wrightslaw.com, www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.garret.htm.
“Part 300 (Part B) – Assistance To States For The Education Of Children With Disabilities.” Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 3 Oct. 2018, sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b.