Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 468 U.S. 883 (1984)

Assignment for SPE 514
by

Sarah Walker

on 8 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 468 U.S. 883 (1984)

Irving Independent School District provided an Individualized Education Plan under the requirements of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, for Amber at three and a half years of age . Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 468 U.S. 883 (1984) Case Law Analysis
SPE 514
Fall 2012
Messina Lenger, Sarah Schuenke,
&
Nancy Seibert First, the district was to provide Amber with a FAPE under the Education of the Handicapped Act, students are required to receive "free appropriate public education". This education is to include "related services" to meet the need of the students. Second, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 required that schools who receive federal aid may not exclude a student from school activities because of their disability. AMBER'S FAMILY
In August of 1979 Amber Tatro was a 3 year old that was starting preschool in Texas. Amber's family had more than just the first day of school jitters when their daughter started preschool. Because of Amber's condition, she had always been physically limited, but public school presented another set of limitations. 1. Assemble catheterization equipment.
2. Wash hands thoroughly. Put on both pair of gloves.
3. Lubricate the tip of the catheter with Lignocaine gel. Set on a sterile surface.
4. Position the student.
5. Clean along the length of each of the labia majora.
6. Using your non-dominant hand, separate the labia majora and clean the labia minora in the same way. Next, swab in a downward motion between the clitoris and the vagina.
7. Now cautiously remove your outer gloves and discard.
8. Once again with your non-dominant hand separate the labia and with your dominant hand pick up the catheter.
9. In females the urethra is relatively short (around 4cm). The urethral opening or meatus is usually located in the superior fornix of the vulva, between the clitoris and the vagina. Once you think you have the meatus in your sights, hold the catheter in your dominant hand and gently introduce it into the urethra. This may cause some discomfort to the patient so take care. If resistance is felt at the internal sphincter, hold firm, gentle, and steady pressure and the muscles should relax allowing the catheter to pass.
9. When you enter the urethra the correct way, you should get a return of urine. Allow the urine to drain into the collection container.
10. When there is no further flow of urine, remove slowly as more urine may flow from the lower part of the bladder. Clean and store the catheter. Wipe the area again with swabs before replacing undergarments October, 1979:
Tatro filed suit against Irving Indepedent School District regarding their child's access to FAPE by not providing appropriate related services.
District Court heard the case and ruled that CIC was not a 'related service' under EHA because it did not serve a need arising from the effort to educate. IDEA FindingsFAPE34 CFR §§ 300.304 (c) (6) In evaluating each child with a disability under §§ 300.304 through 300.306, the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified. 34 CFR §§ 300.34 (c) (5) Medical services means services provided by a licensed physician to determine a child’s medically related disability that results in the child’s need for special education and related services. 34 CFR §§ 300.34 (c) (13) School health services and school nurse services means health services that are designed to enable a child with a disability to receive FAPE as described in the child’s IEP. School nurse services are services provided by a qualified school nurse. School health services are services that may be provided by either a qualified school nurse or other qualified person. The individual education program did not contain any type of services to service Amber's CIC. At the beginning of the school year, Amber's parents and the school district representatives met to discuss Amber's Individual Education Program. Amber has speech issues and would receive speech services. She also would receive physical therapy and occupational therapy to address her issues with walking and coordination. The individual education program did not contain any type of services to address the need for CIC. Amber requires a CIC (clean intermittent catheterization) every three to four hours, which means at least twice a school day. After the school district told Amber's parents that they would not be providing services for CIC, her parents sent her to school and provided the services that she needed at their own cost. In October of 1979 they filed suit against the district on two separate counts. 1980: Tatro Appealed Case
Court of Appeals heard the case and determined that CIC was a related service under EHA because without the procedure Amber could not attend classes and the benefit of special education.

The case was sent back with these principles. 1984: District appealed to Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agreed with part of the decision of the lower courts.

The Supreme Court did uphold the decision of lower courts regarding FAPE and related services.
There were also limitations.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts decision regarding discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. The Court referenced Smith v. Robinson stating that where EHA applies, the Rehabilitation Act is not relevant because EHS is a more stringent law.
(Wrightslaw, 2007) 1983: District Appealed
Court of Appeals was given this case again in 1983 and they accepted the District Court's decision. In 1979 Amber Tatro, a three year old from Texas, became eligible for early childhood special education services in her local school district. Amber has Spina-bifida, a condition that affects her spinal column and impairs some bodily functions. Amber needs to have a clean intermittent catheterization or CIC performed for her every three to four hours to empty her bladder. Consequently, this procedure will have to be performed during school hours. Setting the Scene The Courts' Decisions The Parent's Position The School District's Position 1981: District Court
The remand was heard in District Court.
The district stated that medical services could qualify as related services only when they served the purposes of evaluation. The court stated that under Texas law, a nurse or other qualified person may administer CIC without engaging in the unauthorized practice of medicine as long as the procedure was prescribed and is supervised by a physician. Therefore, it does not fall under medical services, but related service.
The court ordered that the IEP include CIC as a related service. The district believed the need for "catheterization had nothing to do with Amber's education and that the public school system should not be compelled to provide it," (Maeroff,1984). This view was established by interpretation of Texas law that states CIC should be prescribed and supervised by a physician. The district interpreted the provision of the Education of the Handicapped Act on medical services to mean that "medical services" could be considered a "related service" only when it was used for purposes of diagnosis or evaluation, which was not the situation for this case (Wrightslaw, 2007). The school district believed they had provided access to education.However, the district viewed CIC to be a medical service, meaning "services provided by a licensed physician,". She was placed in an early childhood program and received related services. This plan did not address the need for school personnel to administer CIC. By age 8,she was in a regular classroom and was making adequate progress (Maeroff,1984). Reference
Imber, Michael and Tyll van Geel (2004). Education Law (3rd ed). Mahwah, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, P. 275. Retrieved from: www.academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/mit2008/Win08handouts/edLaw/equity/disabilities/Tatro.htm

Maeroff, G.I. (1984, May). Education; Court asked to limit aid for handicapped. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/1984/05/29/science/education-court-asked-to-limit-aid-for-handicapped.html

Miller, I. (2008, January 13). How to Catheterize a Female. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from www.impactednurse.com/?p=438

Thomas reuters. (2012). Us supreme court. Retrieved September 21, 2012 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US

Wrightslaw. (2007, January 29). Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition. Retrieved August 29, 2012 from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.tatro.htm 3 Pronged Bright-Line Test

1. Student must qualify for disability before they can receive related services.

2. The services must be required for student to attend school and must be provided during school day.

3. School nursing services can only be provided if they can be performed by a nurse or other qualified person.
(Imber & Geel, 2004)
Full transcript