Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Portfolio Artifact 5
Education 203
March 4, 2019
2
Portfolio Artifact 5
Introduction:
Debbie Young, a principle at a school in the Southern United States, must make the
decision of weather or not a student with multiple disabilities will be able to attend a school in
the district. The student, Jonathan, is tenth grader who is a spastic quadriplegic, mentally
disabled, and has a seizure disorder. He also requires full time care from a trained nurse. His
parents would like him to attend the public school, but Debbie turns down their request. She
believes that it would put a large expense on the school district and would not be the most
appropriate placement for him. Debbie must now defend her reasons for this decision.
Pro Support:
In Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058, 1061 (6th Cir. 1983), a mother challenged the IEP
placement of her son with severe mental disabilities. The school district decided to place him in a
county school exclusively for children with severe mental disabilities so he would have no
interaction with children without disabilities. The parents filed suit against the school district
because this was not the least restrictive environment. They wanted their son to be educated in a
special education classroom in a regular school. The court ruled in favor of the parents but not
before stating that cost could be consider a factor in deciding adequate placement of a child
because “excessive spending on one handicapped child deprives other handicapped children”.
This is one of Debbie Young’s primary concerns. The education of Jonathan at her school would
result in a tremendous expense that would use up so may school funds that other students access
developed an IEP that placed Beth in a self-contained program. The parents disagreed with this
decision and filed suit against the school, but the courts filed in favor of the school. Beth had the
cognitive ability of a child who is between one and six years of age, communicated through eye
gaze, and needed assistance to walk. She was severely limited and needed specialized care. After
reviewing the facts of the case, the court decided that the school’s decision was based on sound
expertise that could not be matched by the courts. Jonathan’s case is very similar, he needs full
time nurse assistance and multiple disabilities that affect his health. He would be very limited in
a general education school and would not have access to the specialized services he may need.
Con Support:
In Mills v. Washington D.C. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972), a
group of students was denied a free and appropriate public education because of behavioral
problems. The court classified among the category of exceptional children which includes
children with disabilities. It ruled in favor of the students claiming that all students are entitled to
receive a free and appropriate education regardless of their disabilities. In the case of Jonathan,
this would mean even though he has multiple disabilities, the school is still responsible for
343 F. Supp. 179 (E.D. Pa. 1972), the commonwealth of Pennsylvania had passed a law that
allowed public schools to deny the free education of students who had reached an age of 8 or
older but whose cognitive age was below the age of 5. PARC, along with the parents of many of
4
Portfolio Artifact 5
these children that were denied education because of this law, filed a lawsuit. The courts found
the law unconstitutional and it was revoked. The state was responsible for providing a free public
education to all students so they could not turn down a disabled student because they could still
benefit from the education received no matter what their mental age may be. It also decided that
the quality of the education had to be same as the quality of the education of any regular child
without disabilities. If Debbie were to follow the precedent of this case, she would have to let
Jonathan attend her school because it is unconstitutional to deny him a free education.
Conclusion:
This scenario involves principal Debbie Young is faced with the dilemma of deciding
between the least restrictive learning environment for Jonathan and the most appropriate. Her
school might not have all resources that a specialized school might have for Jonathan and his
disabilities, but it would the least restrictive because he would get the opportunity to interact with
many students without disabilities. As a public-school principal, Debbie cannot deny a free
education to any student unless there is another school in the district that can better serve all his
needs. Because, such a school was never mentioned in the scenario, it can be assumed that such a
school does not exist in the district and therefore Debbie cannot deny his education. It is also true
that his education would be very expensive for the school, but if they deny his education, they
would be in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and could risk losing all their
funding. The school first needs to show that they tried to educate the student and gave him the
most appropriate placement possible within the school. If that doesn’t work, then they can have
Beth B. v. Clay, 282 F.3d 493 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 948 (2002)
Mills v. Washington D.C. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972)
Underwood, J. (2006) School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications. Upper