Running Head: Education of Students with Disabilities 1

Artifact 4: Education of Students with Disabilities

Cody Wilson

Edu 210-1003

Dr. Dale Warby

2/25/2019
Education of Students with Disabilities 2

A high school principal at a local high school named Debbie Young, who has previously served as

a special education teacher and an assistant principal, resides in a progressive school district within the

Southern United States. She is approached by the parents of a severely disabled student named

Jonathan, whom they want to attend a school within the district. The student is mentally disabled, has

spastic quadriplegia, frequently gets seizures, and requires frequent nursing care. Due to the cost that

comes with the required care, Ms. Young declines the parents’ request and tells the parents that she

feels the school is not the best place for the student. I will use two cases to argue for and against why

the principal’s decision was the right decision to make, then give my own statement.

My first case I would like to use to argue for the principal’s decision is Board of Education of the

Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982). In the case of Board of Education of the

Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982), a deaf student was not given a sign language

interpreter, and her parents filed suit. The case went to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled in a six

to 3 decision, that the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 “requires access to specialized

instruction and related services”, but not additional services that would not otherwise already be

provided to other students (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v.

Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)). As the handicapped student would require constant nursing care, the

school is not required to provide additional services that it cannot reasonably provide to all students in

the school.

My next case I would like to use to defend Ms. Young’s actions is LT v. Warwick School

Committee (2004). In the case of LT v. Warwick School Committee, the district had provided reasonable

classroom accommodations for an autistic child, under the Individualized Education Program. However,

the parent declined, and instead asked for a different set of accommodations under Discrete Trial

Training. The court ruled that, while Discrete Trial Training methods may have been best for the child,

IDEA provisions only require IEPs that are “reasonably calculated to provide an appropriate education as
Education of Students with Disabilities 3

defined in federal and state law” (LT v. Warwick School Committee, 361 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2004)). As the

care requested by the parents of Jonathan may be the best care that is available, the school district is

not necessarily capable of, nor required to provide these accommodations to the disabled student.

However, to argue against Principal Young’s decision, I would like to first bring to attention

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972). In

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972), the argument

was made that the district’s authority to deny education to children who had reached the physical age

of eight, but not the mental age of five. This authority was deemed to be unjust, as it violated student’s

first amendment rights on the grounds of due process, and the ruling was made that all students can

benefit from public education to varying degrees. In addition, schools cannot deny students based upon

their perceived mental age (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania (1972)).

The second case I would like to use to argue for Jonathan’s rights as a student, is Cedar Rapids

Community School District v. Garret F. (1999). In this case, it was ruled in a seven to two decision that

schools that receive funding through the Disabilities Education Act are required to provide services

relative to a disabled student’s wellbeing if it would allow them to access education opportunities and

keep the student in school (Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999)). In

this current situation with Jonathan, the school district can not turn him away simply due to the care

that he would require.

In conclusion, I feel that, although the school in which Ms. Young works at may not be the best

possible environment for Jonathan and she firmly believes that to be the case, she had no right to deny

his admission and tell his parents that he is not suitable for their school without giving the parents the

proper resources for what could be a better school to seek out. In addition, as ruled in PARC v.
Education of Students with Disabilities 4

Commonwealth, Ms. Young is potentially violating Jonathan’s first amendment right to due process by

denying his admission. Based upon these cases and my own beliefs, I believe Ms. Young’s decision to be

indefensible and unjust.

Education of Students with Disabilities 5

References

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999).

LT v. Warwick School Committee, 361 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2004).

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257

(E.D. Pa. 1971)