In this case, parents of a little girl, Amber, are requesting that she receive some special services at school. Without these special services Amber would not be able to attend school. The parents are contesting that the Education of the Handicapped Act or the Rehabilitation Act or 1973 should provide these special services.
Amber is an eight-year-old girl who has spina bifida, which has left her with an orthopedic and speech impairment and a neurogenic bladder. Thus, she needs someone to catheterize her every three to four hours so that it does not damage her kidneys. The training for this procedure is less than an hour long and can be administered by anyone with the appropriate training. Both parents and her brother are trained to perform this catherization. Amber is not quite able to perform this procedure yet, but she will in the near future. The school has been giving her special education services, such as physical and occupational therapy. Amber's parents believe that the special servies should also include the catherization. However, the school district does not feel that this procedure falls under their umbrella.
The court looked at several aspects in making their decisions for this case. The court first had to look at the definition of "special education" and "related services". Amber's case was one of special education based on her needs. Looking at the related services definition, the court determined that Amber would not be able to attend school if this procedure was not performed. This clearly makes this a supportive service. Also, the court examined on whether this procedure would cost the district an extensive amount of money to perform. The training for this procedure only took less than an hour, and anyone is able to provide this service. Based on this evaluation of the definitions of special education and related services, the school ditrict needs to provide this service to Amber.
I agree with the court's decision. Amber has every right to be educated as a person even if she has some handicap. Handicaps should not deter the education system from providing them with the opportunities of a free and public education. Many great people in history were handicapped. For example, Helen Keller and Beethoven were both handicapped, but they both contributed to the greater society. This little girl should have the opportunity to a quality education.
Domain 1.3: Apply legal guidelines (e.g. in relation to students with disabilities, bilingual education, confidentially, discrimination) to protect the rights of students and staff and to improve learning opportunities. I will be able to apply this domain to my school by ensuring that all students are given an appropriate education. If some students need special services, then my duty is to help decide, with others, what services are specifically needed to give the student the best education possible.
Domain 3.9: Apply local, state, and federal laws and policies to support sound decision-making related to school programs and operations (e.g. student services, food services, health services, transportation). I will be able to apply this domain by referencing the laws involved in the health services. I need to make sure that I provide all the services available to those students who are in need of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree with the blogger and the court's decision. In my opinion, there should have been no question as to what degree Amber's related service was. She is entitled those services and to a free and appropriate education. I am disgusted by the fact the school did not want to meet her needs and that the court had to spell it out for them. By denying her bathroom capabilities, she would have had to stay at home to receive her education. I could see how this could have eventually become a compulsary attedance issue such as In re Rebekah T. We all have needs. Some more than others, so just because Amber's needs were greater does not invalidate her rights. The case is not talking about brain surgery. To deny her is just morally wrong. As a supervisor, I need to be aware of the needs of others. There will be issues that take me out of that comfort zone, but the end result is what is important. In this case, Amber is important, not my fears or insecurities. I need to beaware of that so if I ask my staff to do something similar, I am willing to lead by example.
Trout Fish
I agree with the courts decision and the blogger on this case. The service of providing the CIC does fall under the umbrella of the school district to provide those services for Amber. It is a procedure that doesnt require someone with medical training, only a brief training on how to apply the device. Also, it is not something that the school was going to have to buy, just provide the service so the girl could attend school. This can be applied to my school setting in that we have aides that are assigned to students that need their constant assistance each day at school, so these are services that we provide to students of special needs.
posted by ironman25
SHOOTER
I think the court and the blogger are right on the money. There is money set aside for people that have a handicap so they can get services they need. Amber is in need of special services whether a specialist is need or not the school is required to give her the education she is deserving.
At our school we have kids that fall under this umbrella, a lot of them will not be able to function without assistance but there are those that if they get the help that is needed they will be able to function like everyone else.
~Belle~
I must agree with the court and the blogger. The services the parents wanted to be provided to Amber were reasonable and enforceable. Children with serious medical needs are entilted to a free public education.
We have two children who receive services similar to Amber. It is our duty to help them so they may mature and be able to function somewhat in society. To deprive these students of this right would be a wrong against society.
APA1906:
I agree with the blogger and the decision of the court. Though it seems to me that the court, in defining "Related Services", contradicts itself. I would think that CIC would be a medical procedure that was necessary for Amber to receive a free and appropriate education. The court expressly notes that "medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only" and this the part that I don't agree with. However, the precedent was set and I believe the right decision was made. I just believe that in narrowly defining this phrase and placing the for "diagnostic and evaluation purposes only" on it, made the ruling cloudy. It is important for my staff to understand the rights of our special populations, to ensure a free and appropriate education for all of our students.
I agree with the blogger and the court. This child deserves reasonable accomodations under EHEA and ADA. These are federal mandates and are not suggestions for administrators to follow. I would have every resource available on my campus to accomodate these children regardless of budget. I will find alternative funding methods once budget funds have been exhausted by finding alternative funding options. Posted by FatBoySLIM
sucram54:
I also agree with the blogger in this case. I don't think there should be any kind of handicap that should prevent this little girl from a public education. Plus, it was not like the school had to spend much money or time on the training. I think the school was simply trying to get out of providing a service the girl obviously needed. Not to mention the ethics that are involved in this case definitetly places the school district in the wrong.
As an administrator, an issue like this could definitetly come about. One of this simplicity it seems could have been handled by a moral stand point.
by kido5150:
I think that the little girl has every right to attend school and regardless of her handicap should still be allowed her FAPE. As teachers, currently most of us, we need to be aware of any special needs that our students may have - no atter how big or small and try to accomodate them. As future administrators, we need to ensure that our staff is aware of special needs and that we fight for the FAPE of all students.
The procedure to empty a bladder is an easy one. It is critical to the young girl's health. Why would the school not want to comply? My only guess is that there may have been a concern for excessive costs. The court finds in favor of Tatro and said that the procedures were service related and the state was held liable for the services.
I agree with blogger and the court's decision. This is a pretty straight forward case.
fnb84
Post a Comment