Portfolio Artifact #5 1

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #5

Julio Z. Vargas

College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT #5 2

Abstract

Instillation number five in my student portfolio is the most unique of the bunch so far.

This situation pertains to a seasoned educational professional, by the name of Debbie Young, not

allowing a severely disabled student from attending a local school. The student’s disabilities

require a nurse to attend to him 24/7, he is known to have a seizure disorder as well. Young

declines to allow Jonathan to be enrolled because of extraordinary expense the school could face

and because she feels like school is not the place for him. We have to argue both sides of this

case. For evidence, we must cite two court cases that defend Mrs. Young’s case and two cases

that defend Jonathan’s case. I then need to decide which way I think the court will rule based on

the evidence I found.

ARTIFACT #5 3

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #5

P.A.R.C. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – Pro Student

This case absolutely can be used in this circumstance. In this landmark case, students

with disabilities were given the right to a public education. In Pennsylvania, there was a state law

that allowed schools to turn down students with disabilities who had not reached the mental age

of five years old by the time they should be in first grade. “The plaintiffs argued that this

exclusion violated their rights under both the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment.” ("The Right to Education | Disability Justice ", 2018) Jonathan

has many disabilities, but the situation we were given does not put a mental age limit on him. If

students were given the right to an education with a mental age of five or younger, Jonathan

should be allowed to be enrolled. If this decision is a violation of the 14th Amendment, then it is

unconstitutional thus being illegal to enforce. The court has to rule in favor of Jonathan in this

circumstance.

Mills v. Board of Education – Pro Student

This case goes beyond the developmental disabilities that were touched upon by P.A.R.C. v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Mills lawsuit was brought to the courts to defend students
who had mental, behavioral, physical, or emotional disabilities. This lawsuit had the same
grounds; the students were denied their constitutional right to Due Process. “The Court held that
no child could be denied a public education because of “mental, behavioral, physical or
emotional handicaps or deficiencies.” The Court further noted that defendants’ failure to provide
such an education could not be excused by the claim of insufficient funds.” ("The Right to
Education | Disability Justice ", 2018) In the situation we were give, Mrs. Young denied Jonathan
because of ‘extraordinary expense’. The court’s ruling in Mills v. BOE said that no school can
use the excuse of insufficient funds to deny a disabled student an education. On these grounds,
the court must rule in favor of Jonathan.
ARTIFACT #5 4

School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Department of Educ. of Mass – Pro

Education Official

In this case, the courts ruled that parents have the right to be reimbursed for their

expenditures for private special education. If Mrs. Young truly believes that the school district

isn’t the right place for Jonathan to receive a proper education, then the parents should take him

to a private special education school. The school district will be required to reimburse the

parents, but Mrs. Young’s decision to decline Jonathan’s placement is defended. “a school district

may be required to reimburse parents for tuition and other expenses related to a private school

placement when (1) the IEP and placement offered by the school district were inadequate or

inappropriate.” (Crane, 2014) Due to Mrs. Young’s concerns and her vast experience in the

educational field, we must assume that an IEP created at a school will not be adequate enough to

help Jonathan learn. The court must rule in her favor.

Mclaughlin v. Holt Public Schools.

In this court case, “the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically found that a student

could be served outside of the neighborhood school if another school in the district, rather than

the neighborhood school, offered the program the student needed.” (Underwood & Webb, 2006)

If Mrs. Young believes that this certain school can’t give Jonathan a proper special education, she

can recommend another school in the district that has a program that will suit Jonathan better and

set him up for success. Based on the Mclaughlin v. Holt case, it is legal for Mrs. Young to turn

Jonathan away in the best interest of the student. If sued, Mrs. Young can bring forward this case

to defend herself and win the decision.

ARTIFACT #5 5

Conclusion.

In the beginning of this scenario I thought I would for sure side with Jonathan, the

student. However, after reading the different court cases that aid this scenario, I believe the court

will rule in favor of Mrs. Young. The best-case Debbie has is the last case I cited in this artifact.

The Mclaughlin v. Holt case sets the precedent that a student can be sent to another school in the

district that has a program that will give Jonathan the best chance for a successful education. If

Debbie refers the parents to a school that has a great special education program, she is not at

fault for any wrong doing. She is simply looking out for Jonathan’s best interests. The court

should rule in favor of Debbie Young in this scenario!

ARTIFACT #5 6

References: The Right to Education | Disability Justice . (2018). Retrieved February 22, 2018,

fromhttp://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-education/

Crane, B., Esq. (2014, September 25). Bill’s Blog: Ten Supreme Court Special Education Cases

You Need to Know. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from

https://massadvocates.org/billsview/

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.