Case Study-Hurry vs Jones
Michelle Vandeprool
March 10, 2013
SPD 616
IEP Case Study Review
Hurry v. Jones
Having reviewed the case Hurry V. Jones 734 F.2d 879 (1st Cir. 1984), at first reading of the case and with my novice awareness of the law I am seriously concerned as to why this ever went to court. IDEA and the constitution of the United States guarantee that students will receive a free public education no matter what their handicaps. The District should have provided some method by which this student could be educated. I am aware that people exceeding George’s weight are regularly transported to varying places if not by bus, by ambulance and other vehicles. A student like George needs all of the education that he can possible absorb and no limitations of that education should be acceptable. Transportation is provided all over the country for students with limited mobility and or cognitive difficulties. It seems like a “slam dunk” that something should have been done to see that George was educated. In addition, the idea of home schooling is limited to exceptional need and usually to fragile students or dangerous students. George was neither. The problem of the ramp should never have reached the superintendent in a city, the capitol of the state and the size of Providence. It would seem that a little searching, perhaps a little publicity would have located a group of city minded people who would not only fund the ramp and elevate the problem of getting George up and down to his house. One need only look at the numbers of fraternal organizations that assist the handicap and take on necessary projects such as this. Why would the lack of a ramp ever go to court?
I am well aware of the litigious nature of many special education families. In some cases the families are so frustrated by the limitations of their child that they seek to reach out and make someone pay, hence law suits. This case does not seem to fall under this
March 10, 2013
SPD 616
IEP Case Study Review
Hurry v. Jones
Having reviewed the case Hurry V. Jones 734 F.2d 879 (1st Cir. 1984), at first reading of the case and with my novice awareness of the law I am seriously concerned as to why this ever went to court. IDEA and the constitution of the United States guarantee that students will receive a free public education no matter what their handicaps. The District should have provided some method by which this student could be educated. I am aware that people exceeding George’s weight are regularly transported to varying places if not by bus, by ambulance and other vehicles. A student like George needs all of the education that he can possible absorb and no limitations of that education should be acceptable. Transportation is provided all over the country for students with limited mobility and or cognitive difficulties. It seems like a “slam dunk” that something should have been done to see that George was educated. In addition, the idea of home schooling is limited to exceptional need and usually to fragile students or dangerous students. George was neither. The problem of the ramp should never have reached the superintendent in a city, the capitol of the state and the size of Providence. It would seem that a little searching, perhaps a little publicity would have located a group of city minded people who would not only fund the ramp and elevate the problem of getting George up and down to his house. One need only look at the numbers of fraternal organizations that assist the handicap and take on necessary projects such as this. Why would the lack of a ramp ever go to court?
I am well aware of the litigious nature of many special education families. In some cases the families are so frustrated by the limitations of their child that they seek to reach out and make someone pay, hence law suits. This case does not seem to fall under this