Running head: ASSINGMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 1

Portfolio Assignment #5

Special Education

Stephanie Mora

College of Southern Nevada

November 17, 2016

ASSINGMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 2

Special Education

Debbie Young is an experienced high school principal. Before taking this post, she

worked as a special education teacher and an assistant principal in a progressive, wealthy school

district in the South. The parents of Jonathan, a severely disabled tenth-grade student, request to

have their son attend one of the schools in this district. Jonathan is severely mentally disabled,

has spastic quadriplegia, and suffers from a seizure disorder, so he requires constant care by a

specially trained nurse. Debbie Young decides to refuse the parents request because it would be

too costly and she believed that the school would not be the most appropriate placement for

Jonathan.

The first case that shows that Jonathan should be allowed to attend a school in the district

is Board of Education, Sacramento City Unified School District v. Holland (1992). This case has

to do with Rachel Holland, “a nine year old girl who is moderately mentally retarded, has an I.Q.

of 44, and on academic testing functions is at about the level of a four year old child” (Board of

Education, Sacramento City Unified School District v. Holland, 1992). The School District

decided that she should be placed half of the time in a special education class and the other half

in a regular classroom, but the parents disagreed with the placement; rejected the District’s

proposal; entered Rachel in a regular kindergarten class in a private school, where she is assisted

by a part-time aide; and sought a due process hearing (Board of Education, Sacramento City

Unified School District v. Holland, 1992) The hearing officer found that Holland should be

placed in regular classroom all day and with appropriate support services. The District disagreed

with this decision stating that “Rachel [was] too severely handicapped to benefit from a full time

placement in a regular class”, but when they challenged this decision in the district court, they

once again lost. The Court said that Holland’s improved self-confidence and excitement about
ASSINGMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 3

school were proof that being in regular classes had benefitted her, and that the school offered “no

persuasive or credible evidence in support of its claim that educating Rachel in a regular

education classroom with appropriate services would be significantly more expensive than

educating her in the District's proposed setting” (Board of Education, Sacramento City Unified

School District v. Holland, 1992). This relates to Jonathan’s case because the principal is

assuming, as the school district did with Holland, that his placement in a regular classroom will

serve no purpose; in other words, being placed there will not benefit him in any way. However, if

Jonathan is given a chance to attend the school, he might receive the same benefits Holland did.

Secondly, just like in the Holland case, Dennis Young might be “[painting] an exaggerated,

hyperbolic picture” of what it would cost to educate Jonathan in a regular classroom with

appropriate support services” (Board of Education, Sacramento City Unified School District v.

Holland, 1992).

The second case that shows the Jonathan should be allowed to attend a school in the

district is Roncker v. Walter (1983). This case deals with a Neill Roncker, a nine year old, who is

severely mentally retarded, has a mental age of two to three with regard to most functions,

suffers from seizures, and requires almost constant supervision (Roncker v. Walter, 1983). After

evaluating Neill, the school district decided to place him in a county school that was “exclusively

for mentally retarded” children. His parents refused the school’s placement and sought a due

process hearing which found that “the school district had not satisfied its burden of proving that

its proposed placement afforded the maximum appropriate contact with non-handicapped

children”, so he should be placed “within the appropriate special education class in the regular

elementary school setting”(Roncker v. Walter, 1983). The school district challenged this decision

and won because they “found that Neill required the educational opportunities provided by the
ASSINGMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 4

county school” (Roncker v. Walter, 1983). However, court of appeals found that the decision had

to be revoked because (1) “The perception that a segregated institution is academically superior

for a handicapped child may reflect no more than a basic disagreement with the mainstreaming

concept”, (2) the school should determine whether “the services which make that placement

superior could be feasibly provided in a non-segregated setting”, (3) the argument the mom made

about “the school district automatically [sending] students classified as Trainable Mentally

Retarded to the county schools” (Roncker v. Walter, 1983). This relates to Jonathan’s case

because if they school is denying him placement in the school based solely on the labels of his

disabilities, it would be against the principles of the Individuals Disability Education Act

(IDEA). Also, Jonathan has a right to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive

environment. This means that the school has to try to give Jonathan the services to make his

placement appropriate in a school before sending him to a more restrictive place.

The first case that supports Debbie Young’s decision of not allowing Jonathan to attend a

school in the district is Beth B. v. Van Clay (2001). This case deals with Beth a thirteen year old

girl with Rett Syndrome. Her “motor skills are estimated between five and seven months, she can

only walk with one-on-one assistance”, and she communicates primarily by using eye gaze (Beth

B. v. Van Clay, 2001). By urging of the parents, she was placed in a regular kindergarten class

with support services in 1994. She remained here until 1997 when the school district “over her

parents’ objections, developed an IEP that placed Beth in a self-contained program” with

teachers who were specifically trained to deal with students with severe disabilities like Beth’s

(Underwood & Webb, 2006, p.155). Beth’s parents rejected this placement and sought a due

process hearing. The hearing officer ruled in favor of the school, so the parents took the case to a

district court. However, the Court ruled in favor of the school stating that they couldn’t
ASSINGMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 5

"substitute [their] own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities."

(Beth B. v. Van Clay, 2001). Similarly, they said the decision made by the hearing officer was

“based on expertise [they couldn’t] match” (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p.155). This relates to

Young’s decision because she has prior experience as a special education teacher; therefore, she

has seen and knows what a child with Jonathan’s disabilities would need and the best options for

him to receive educational benefits.

The second case that supports Debbie Young’s decision of not allowing Jonathan to

attend a school in the district is McLaughlin v. Holt Public School (2001). This case deals with

Emma, an eight year old girl who has Down's syndrome. Her parents claim that they are “entitled

to have Emma educated in their neighborhood public school in a general education setting”

(McLaughlin v. Holt Public School, 2001). However, the Court decided that “a student could be

served outside of a neighborhood school if another school…offered the program the student

needed” (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p.155). This relates to Young’s decision because even

though Jonathan’s parents wanted him to attend that school, for whatever reason the district or

closeness to home, it did not mean that it was the most appropriate place for him to attend. There

could have been other schools in different locations that were more suited to deal with

Jonathan’s disabilities and help him gain educational benefits.

I think that Debbie Young’s decision did have defensible grounds, and that the court will

rule in favor of the school because of the decisions in Beth B. v. Van Clay (2001) and

McLaughlin v. Holt Public School (2001). In Beth B. v. Van Clay (2001), the Court said that the

decision the hearing officer made was based on expertise they couldn’t match. So, this would

mean that Young, who has experience as a special education teacher, she has more expertise and

knowledge of what is and isn’t the most appropriate placement for Jonathan. Secondly, in
ASSINGMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 6

McLaughlin v. Holt Public School (2001), the Court said that a students didn’t have to be served

at a particular school if the programs that would help them gain educational benefits were

somewhere else. This would mean that if the programs that would help Jonathan were found

somewhere else, that school, not the one the parents wanted, would be the most appropriate place

to send Jonathan. Lastly, the IDEA says that mainstreaming is important, but only if it provides

educational and nonacademic benefits to the child with disabilities, it doesn’t negatively affect

the teacher or other students in the classroom, and the cost of mainstreaming isn’t too high

(Underwood & Webb, 2006, p.155). In Jonathan’s case, Young believes that his placement in the

school would not be appropriate and that it would be too costly, so she has good reasons to

refuse the parent’s request.

ASSINGMENT #5 SPECIAL EDUCATION 7

References

Beth B. v. Van Clay (2001). Retrieved from

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/211/1020/2572295/

Board of Education, Sacramento City Unified School District v. Holland (1992). Retrieved
from http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921660786FSupp874_11558.xml/BD.%20OF
%20EDUC. %20SACRAMENTO%20CITY%20SCHOOL%20D.%20v.%20HOLLAND

McLaughlin v. Holt Public School (2001). Retrieved from

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/133/994/2292901/

Roncker v. Walter (1983). Retrieved from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19831758700F2d1058_11608/RONCKER%20ON%20B
EHALF%20OF%20RONCKER%20v.%20WALTER

Underwood, J, Webb, L.D. (2006) School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.