Running Head: PORTFOLIO 5 1

Portfolio 5

Angelica Viggiano

College of Southern Nevada

Running Head: PORTFOLIO 5 2

In recent history, society has recognized that people with special needs must not be shut

out, but welcomed and assisted in tasks that everyone else has the ability to do independently.

With the introduction of Acts such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), people with special needs have had more

opportunities than ever before; yet sometimes it can still be a struggle for them to have access to

the opportunities granted in the Acts. At a high school in the south, a principal by the name of

Debbie Young refused admission to a student, Jonathan, who was severely disabled. Young

stated that admitting Jonathan would be an incredible expense and that the school was not the

best placement for Jonathan. Further in this discussion we will see whether or not Ms. Young

had the authority to not accept Jonathan into her school.

Very similar to this case is Burlington School Comm. V. Massachusetts Dept. of

Education. Here, a student was already attending Memorial Elementary School when he started

displaying specific learning disabilities. After attempts at individual special education with no

success, the school decided that it was not best suited to fit the student’s needs. Even after

consulting a doctor, it was determined that the student needed “​a highly specialized setting for

children with learning handicaps. . . such as the Carroll School,” which is a private school for

special education (​Burlington School Comm. v. Mass. Dept. of Ed., 1985). Likewise in the case

of Jonathan, the principal feels that he would be more successful and better provided for at a

different school.

Jonathan, being a minor, is legally required to be in some sort of educational program.

That being said, he must currently already be in some type of school. In Honig v. Doe, they

approach the “stay-put” provision of the IDEA which “​Directs that a disabled child shall remain
Running Head: PORTFOLIO 5 3

in [his or her] then current educational placement pending completion of any review

proceedings, unless the parents and state or local educational agencies otherwise agree” (1988).

So, Ms. Young is not depriving a child of an education by directing the family towards a more

suitable school. Until they find such school that will be more equipped to handle Jonathan’s

needs, he will stay in his current education placement.

As we know, school districts need all the funds they can get. Under IDEA, “In order to

qualify for federal financial assistance... a State must demonstrate that it has in effect a policy

that assures all handicapped children the right to a free appropriate public education” (Board of

Ed. v. Rowley, 1982). I am going to assume that Young’s district is receiving federal financial

assistance, therefore she must have a policy for all handicapped children, no matter their

disability. If the parents felt that the IED provided for Jonathan at Young’s school was not

sufficient enough to care for him, that would have been their decision to find an alternate school.

Children with disabilities must be given the option to a free, appropriate public education.

Schools must do everything in their power to provide for students to the best of their ability. In

Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified, that is what they did. This case is an example of what should

have happened in the situation of Jonathan’s education. Paradise Valley Unified School District

provided an IEP for Isadora Shapiro, which her parents saw as an “appropriate educational

program,” and enrolled her in a school specializing in her disability (Shapiro v. Paradise Valley

Unified, 2004). With Jonathan, Young should have offered an IEP before declaring that their

school was not suitable for him.

With these examples in mind, specifically Board of Ed. v. Rowley, and Shapiro v.

Paradise Valley Unified, I conclude that Young was in the wrong for denying Jonathan
Running Head: PORTFOLIO 5 4

admittance. While it may be true that Jonathan would be better accommodated in a different

placement, Young must provide Jonathan the opportunity for education.

Running Head: PORTFOLIO 5 5

References

Burlington School Comm. v. Mass. Dept. of Ed., 471 US 359 (Supreme Court, 1985)

Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 US 176 (Supreme Court, 1982)

Honig v. Doe, 484 US 305 (Supreme Court, 1988)

Shapiro ex rel. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified, 374 F. 3d 857 (Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit,

2004)