Legal Case Study for Special Education free essay sample

This assistance was not necessarily required to be done by a medical professional, in the past Garret’s teenage aunt completed those tasks and was not a medical professional. The School District did not want to comply with the request from Garret’s parents due to the cost that would arise from the salary for the caregiver. Garret’s parents took the School District to court and the School District fought the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Cedar Rapids Community School District v. We will write a custom essay sample on Legal Case Study for Special Education or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Garret F. , 1999) The Supreme Court had to use the analysis of â€Å"related services† in Garret’s case as they had done with the Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro case because both students had similar needs that were related to medical processes however there had to be a determination if the services that they required were â€Å"related† or medical (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. , 1999) (Irving Independent School District vs. Amber Tatro, 1984). The distinction between those two services is that medical services are services that are provided by a licensed physician; and related services are services that could be provided by anyone that had been trained or had the education or certification to provide the services that a student would need to have the ability to participate in school and learn. In the Tatro case that was decided in 1984, the Supreme Court upheld that the services that were provided to the student by means of catheterization could be provided by anyone that was trained to perform the task and that particular task did not have to be done by a physician (Irving Independent School District vs. Amber Tatro, 1984). Garret’s decision was heard in 1999, and the Supreme Court referred back to Tatro’s case as a precedent that must be adhered to in their decision on Garret’s case (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. , 1999) (Irving Independent School District vs. Amber Tatro, 1984). The School District in Garret’s case felt that this case was different than the Tatro case because they felt as if the care that was provided for the student in the Tatro case was intermittent and did not require for the trained professional to be on hand the entire day one-on-one with the student (Irving Independent School District vs. Amber Tatro, 1984) (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. , 1999). However, in Garret’s case, he did require continuous care the entire day by a qualified care giver (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. 1999). The School District also contended that this constant care needed for the student would prevent existing school medical personnel to be able to perform any other duties except those needed by Garret. Thirdly, they also contended that the cost to the District would be expensive to employ such a qualified person to be provided to Garret. All of these differences were brought up in the Garret case, by the District, to the Supreme Court because they thought that those differences showed clear distinctions between the Tatro case and Garret’s case (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. , 1999) (Irving Independent School District vs. Amber Tatro, 1984). The District proposed a test that would analyze the outcome of cases like Garret’s and use certain criteria that would gauge the probability that the situation could work. They had four factors that would influence their ability to provide what was termed required care. The first factor was referencing the time that would be spent providing the care to the student. The second factor referred to the ability of school personnel to provide the needed service for the student. The third factor was the cost that the District would incur for the service. Lastly, the District proposed that they had concerns about the results of services that were not properly administered to the student. The Supreme Court understood that the District would have financial concerns about providing the care that would be required by Garret and other students in similar situations, however they contended that there interpretation about the law was tantamount to whatever cost they would incur. They upheld that public education must be provided to all children regardless of the cost that would be required to provide elated services to allow all student the opportunity of an education. (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. , 1999) Garret’s parents did what they thought was right for their son and given the same situation, most parents would do whatever they could for their child. His parent’s also provided care from the time of his injury as a child unti l he went to middle school at their own cost. It was only after they could no longer afford his care that they asked the School District to assist their son to have the chance to attend school with his peers. Asking for Garret to require minimal assistance that would allow him to receive not only an education but to be included among his classmates as a contributing class member is something that cannot be examined as a cost, there can be no measure to the cost if Garret could not achieve what should be the right of any child. Garret F. was given the chance to have an as normal as possible educational experience because his parents, and ultimately the United States Supreme Court, thought that the limitations that he had to learning were easily overcome with assistance. The School District had to be responsible for providing an assistant to help Garret to overcome his physical limitations in order for Garret to be able to receive an education in the same venue that any other public school student is taught. (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. , 1999) References Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. , 526 (United States Supreme Court March 3, 1999). Irving Independent School District vs. Amber Tatro, 468 (United States Supreme Court July 5, 1984).