Jonathan

v. Debbie Young 1

Jonathan v. Debbie Young

Emily Kesler

EDU 210

Assignment 5

February 27, 2017

Jonathan v. Debbie Young 2

An experienced high school principal, Debbie Young, is contacted by the parents of a

severely disabled tenth-grade student, Jonathan. Debbie Young served as both a special

education teacher and assistant principle in a prosperous school district in the South.

Jonathan’s parents want him to attend one of the schools in the local district, however

Jonathan needs exceptional care and requires constant care by a full-time nurse. He is intensely

mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Principal, Debbie Young,

refuses the parents request to enroll Jonathan because the cost for him to be enrolled would

be far too high. She also feels that school is not a suitable placement for Jonathan.

Debbie Young’s decision to not allow Jonathan to enroll in school is not defensible

because of the IDEA act. This act applies to all children with disabilities between the ages of

three and twenty-one, regardless of the nature or severity of their disabilities, must be

available to them a free and appropriate education and related services to meet their unique

needs (2006). In the Education v. Rowley case, Amy Rowley, a deaf student, received a FM

hearing device her kindergarten year which intensified sounds and words spoken by her

teachers. Her next year, she received her FM hearing device as well as a tutor and speech

therapist. Amy’s parents asked the school to provide her with a sign language interpreter,

however the school did not have to provide one. This is because the school does not have to

provide the best education, but rather one that is sensibly planned to award educational

benefits (2006). In relation to Jonathan, the school is not giving him anything, however they are
Jonathan v. Debbie Young 3

required to provide him with a sensibly planned education, therefore Young’s decision is not

defensible.

In the case, Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F, a quadriplegic student

required constant one on one care with a nurse. Until the student entered fifth grade, the

parents had provided the nursing care for the student. The parents then requested that the

school district provide nursing services and when the school district rejected, the parents

requested a consideration under IDEA. The judge ruled that the school must provide the nurse

as it is a “related service” (2006). This relates to Jonathan’s case because not only does he have

a right to attend school under IDEA, but he also has the right to “related services” being the

care that he needs in school. Therefore, Young’s decision, once again is not defensible.

In the case, McLaughlin v. Hold Public Schools, the court found that a student could be

assisted outside of their region if another school in the district presented a program that the

student needed (2006). In Jonathan’s case, it is possible that principle Young was correct in her

advising because the programs offered at her school were not suitable for Jonathan. Jonathan’s

parents can consider another program at in another neighborhood for Jonathan because of the

McLaughlin case.

Similarly, in the case Beth B. V. Clay, a student had a cognitive of somewhere between a

one and six-year-old. She was unable to walk on her own and could only communicate through

eye movements. After spending three years in a regular classroom, the school district

developed an IEP that placed Beth into a self-contained program against her parents’ wishes.

The judge ruled in favor of the school district saying that the school officials have expertise that
Jonathan v. Debbie Young 4

cannot be matched (2006). Knowing the outcome of this ruling, the court might side with Young

because of her seasoned experience in working with special needs and as a principal. Young

would not want to place Jonathan into a program that he cannot succeed in, rather she would

want him in a program that is the most appropriate placement so he can get the attention that

he needs.

I feel that in the end, the court would rule with Jonathans parents because under the

IDEA Act, no child between the ages of 3 and 21 can be turned away from a public education,

no matter their disability. In conclusion, all children have the right to free and appropriate

education, therefore Jonathan has the right to education and the related services that he

needs.

Jonathan v. Debbie Young 5

Works Cited

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: concepts and applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.