Running head: PORTFOLIO #5 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Portfolio #5 Students with Disabilities

Arantxa R. Alejandro
EDU 210, 11/21/14

PORTFOLIO #5 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

2

Debbie Young, a high school principal, is approached by the parents of a disabled

sophomore student to have their son attend school in the district. The student, Johnathan has
many disabilities in which specialized care by a nurse is required. Johnathan is mentally disabled
and has a seizure disorder. Debbie Young denies the parents request for their son Johnathan
because of the high cost of the specialized care and the argument that the school in the district is
not the best fit for Johnathan.
The first side presented will be why Debbie Youngs decision on not allowing Johnathan
to attend a school in her district, is not defensible. Johnathan clearly has disabilities that do
impact his education. He needs a specialized nurse to help with his conditions at all times. Under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Johnathan has the right to a free and
appropriate education, identification and nondiscriminatory evaluation, and an individualized
education program. Debbie Young made a discriminatory evaluation of Johnathan when she
argued that the schools in her district are not for Johnathan. She did not even properly evaluate
the student and see what programs or accommodations she could make. Proper identification and
evaluation of Johnathans should have been determined before Young denied the boy of his
education. Young is also stopping Johnathan from his right to a free and appropriate education
just because she feels he is not fit for the school district. The school district is required to provide
him with that education regardless of the nature or severity of the students disabilities (p. 143).
One court case that strongly shows Youngs denial of education is wrong, is Board of Education
v. Rowley (1982) in which the Supreme Court stated that a free appropriate public education did
not mean an opportunity to achieve full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided
to other children, but rather access to specialized instruction and related services which are
designed to provide educational benefit to the handicapped child.

PORTFOLIO #5 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

3

Another court case that strongly relates to Youngs decision is Irving Independent School
District v. Amber Tatro (1984) which the Supreme Court ruled that medical treatment, such as
clean intermittent catheterization (CIC), is a related service under the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act and that the school is required to provide it. Young refused
Johnathans request to attend in a school in the district due to extraordinary expense of his
specialized medical needs. Just like in this court case, the student needed special medical
attention in which under the Education of the Handicapped Act, the student must be provided
with it because without it the student would not be able to attend class and benefit from special
education.
Overall, I think Youngs decision is not defensible because she immediately discriminated
when she made the decision that the handicapped student, Johnathan, was not fit for her school
district without the proper evaluation or identification of his condition. I dont think her decision
is defensible because she was thinking more about the expense of his specialized medical needs
rather than providing the student with an education that best fits him. I did not really find any
strong cases or laws that could support her decision as being defensible. Young was wrong for
her decision because she violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the
requirements of the Education of the Handicapped Act.

PORTFOLIO #5 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

4

References
Board of Education v. Rowley, 1982
"The Supreme Court of the United States: Board of Education v. Rowley." WrightsLaw. Wrights
Law, 27 Jan. 2007. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 1984

"The Supreme Court of the United States: District v. Tatro." WrightsLaw. Wrights Law, 27 Jan.
2007. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.