Artifact #5

Artifact #5

Courtney Zedaker

College of Southern Nevada

November 18, 2017

Artifact #5

Debbie Young is a seasoned high school principal. She has also been an assistant

principal in a school district in the South, as well as a special education teacher. The parents of a

tenth-grade student named Jonathan approached Debbie Young wanting him to attend one of the

schools in this district. Jonathan has multiple disabilities including spastic quadriplegia, a seizure

disorder, and is profoundly mentally disabled. He requires constant care by a specially trained

nurse. Young refused the parents request due to the expenses, and felt that particular school is

not the appropriate place for Jonathan.

Jonathans parents feel that he should be able to attend a school in the district and his

needs should be met. The first case that supports the parents claim is Mills v. Board of

Education of District of Columbia (1972). In this case, several students guardians sued the

district for denying admission to the public school. All of the students had been identified as

having special needs (hyperactive, emotionally disturbed, or mental retardation). The parents

argued that the failure of the district to provide them with a public education was a denial of their

constitutional right to an education. The court agreed with the parents and stated that all students

have the right to free education. The ruling specified that students couldnt be turned away from

a school based on needing special accommodations or help. The district argued that they did not

have the funds to support the program these students needed, but the court harshly encouraged

them to reallocate funds appropriately to help serve these students. Similarly in this case, a

student (Jonathan) was turned away from a school due to his special needs. Public school was

created the give children the opportunity to attend school. That opportunity is now a

constitutional right. Jonathans parents want him to be able to attend a public school and get the
Artifact #5

education he deserves. The district cannot discriminate and deny him education just because of

his special needs.

The second case that supports Jonathans parents claim is Cedar Rapids Community

School District v. Garret F (1999). A student in the Cedar Rapids Community School District,

Garret F, requires a wheelchair and is dependent on a ventilator. His parents requested the school

to provide a one-on-one caretaker for him to be able to attend school. The district denied and the

parents sued. The court ultimately found that, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) requires school boards to provide nursing services to disabled students who need them

during the school day (1999). In Jonathans case, he also needs a one-on-one caretaker in order

to attend school. Under IDEA, the school district is required to provide the services he needs so

he may receive an education. He is trying to attend school and receive the proper education like

other student in the district.

Principal Debbie Young does not believe that the school Jonathans parents want him to

attend is the appropriate environment due to his severe disabilities. The first case that supports

her claim is the case Beth B. v. Clay (2002). In this case a student is severely mentally and

physically challenged. Her cognitive ability was that of a one year old to six year old. The

school created an IEP and decided to place her in a self-maintained program. Her parents did not

agree with the decision and opened a case. The court ruled that they supported the school and

said they made a decision on how to best educate the child according to her needs. In Jonathans

situation, Principal Young is also suggesting an environment that would best help him succeed.

He also needs a self-contained environment to provide him with the resources to comfortable

navigate through his day and through the course material. She is looking out for his best
Artifact #5

interested, and is properly trained on meeting the needs of students. She has the knowledge and

experience to make decisions such as this.

The second case that supports the Principals decision is McLaughlin v. Holt Public

Schools (2003). In this case parents of a Downs Syndrome student filed a suit after an IEP was

created that moved her to a school seven miles away from their home, rather than attending the

neighborhood school. The court found that a student could be moved to another school outside of

the neighborhood school if another school in the district could better serve the child. In

Jonathans case, he needs more care than the school can provide. Principal Young feels like the

school his parents want him to attend will not properly meet his needs.

In conclusion, based on the court cases and text, I believe that Jonathans parents will not

win their case for several reasons. Jonathan is severely disabled and requires one-on-one around

the clock care. If the district follows the proper requirements under IDEA and gives him an IEP,

they will have shown the proper steps to place Jonathan. The courts have interpreted the least

restrictive environment (LRE) provision to mean that children with disabilities should not be

removed from the regular educational setting unless the nature or severity of the disability is

such that education in the regular classroom, even with the use of supplemental aids and

services, cannot be satisfactorily achieved (Underwood, Webb, 155). The case McLaughlin v

Holt Public School (2003) supports my decision because it stated if the student requires tools not

available in the regular classroom they are to be placed in a self-contained environment. The

severity of Jonathans disabilities, even using services and aids, cannot be achieved in the regular

classroom. The case Beth B v. Clay (2002) supports my decision because the decision stated the

school, after creating an IEP, has the expertise to determine the best placement for the student.
Artifact #5

For the continued success and education of Jonathan, he would be better suited in another school

where the resources and care that he requires is specialized and available.
Artifact #5

References

Beth B. v. Clay, 126 F.Supp.2d 532 (2002). (n.d). Retrieved November 15, 2017.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1250134.html

Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999). (n.d). Retrieved
November 15, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cedar-Rapids-Community-School-
District-v-Garret-F

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools (2003). (n.d). Retrieved November 16, 2017.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1253429.html

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (1972). (n.d). Retrieved
November 16, 2017. http://usedulaw.com/438-mills-v-board-of-education-of-the-district-of-
columbia.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle River: Pearson
Education